


F 
.Us* 



CC cC 

-"crc cc 



c<.*c «ccc cfcX 5?5 

. c <_ <x cvc*£<v ^S 

C C <d<C < * C - ^ 

"cc cccf c 

' c" r «cc CfcC 
CC c «c cc: c 

2 c <T cc c 

r c^l^^< : 

C '.CC 

r cc 
r c c 
cr<s * 

J.~ C C « 

C occcct 

: c c c cc «p. »>-. 

c c crcc <C £ c 
z <ccc<;cC:C.cc 



C <i c 

C CC 

c tc 
c cc 

c c c 

- cc 

££ £ ( 

C CC 



- V <3f <r«CC « y *-■ 

Q< cCCc 
> C <TC« 

re <&g 
cc <slC 



LtC C 

cc? c 
cc c 

s^ 

,cc 

tec c 
c «r 
CCC 

ate. 
c c 

tec 

cc 

it&c 



C C C^lG 

C C C CC 

CC C Cc 
cc c c c 



CCCCC 
C c c c c 



rcCccc 
cc c c c 

,c c c c c 



fCc 

CC c 

6 c 

--recce 



<-, c <cCc«c;c <c ^> 

C'«!« £ ^C ' 

C -CC CC 

',; C«EC.C. C C • 

3c«E& cc 

c • -c «tc >S^ cc**! c cc - 
rc ^ 5 C cc ccCC cc >< 

' t ■ C>^ ^ coG ;.C CC 

- C? <-<£<- ex > 
^ cCcC'C cc< c 
=■ CcCCCC , 
c CC" VV <CC«Lf cc 

<• C^Y^C W'CC « 

c ^< vfecVwrcc 
■c *T «:. c > >-<?tC< CO< ' 

r ^ "V < CCC\ cc r c 



re C ( 



C C.c«sx cc 

> cc < c c c 



C v ' '■- 
c < • '- 

C * . " r - 

c cc a 
c C cc 



c S- ; v ^ 
C C ccC 
C 1 C' c C 

,c;CC< 
Cv c- c c 
t ■ C cc C 
CC C t c?c 

c cc 



«ce c < 

^p-cc 
eg . c 

<C: CC 

<CCC< 

Cjrrc 

<3 cc:< 

C5CCC 

CCc^C 

C "■■■?( 

ecu 



gs;^s2csg^3cea p £a^:a^3aessc < 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, S 



^ UNITED 



STATES OF AMERICA. 

" I 



-~ ccCC 
C cc C 

" ■ c C ; C 

F «5c c: ^i ' 

- CC - C CC Ci- ,5 

I cCCcC ^ c 

£CCCC C cC 

CCCci^^CC 



'Cc:c 

CC-< 



.Ccc 



CC- Cl 



c rcCi 

c vCCC C£ 
q. <.coc_.^c- 

c ^ 

C '<&: ; 

cciGi 

CS'CC* 



^=- c c cc <; cc c 
- cc C c<cc 

^ c .C c C CC < 

■ arc' cccccj 

c -Cc ccct 

cc C c occcav 
c-c c^:c cc c c c 

V- c^ <: c cc c c c 5 



ill 



c *L CC 

(CC< 



cc c 

-ccc 

•C-C' C 



r;#,;CCCC 
CC^cC.^ -« 

, C CCC^CC 4L * 

C c - cx-;^ ; 

Vccc<sc », 

c c ^ c V'c 
>- ^vc ■■ cc C§ ^ s 

■ C< <c*Ci- cc. y 

o c C l-C : oCC^C< ■ 
c »< C" c; <ccC'.'.^ 
cC C?C c^CXep c 
c c c^C 'CCC C C" 

a C C r C «C5CC]_C:. 



•c *2c C c 
<c #cC C .c" 7 

' : <c^^ 

cCcc cc 

^ff c c c 

^ ccc- c 
«C C5 <c„ 



C CC 


•v c c^ < 


c cc 


c c c: c 


c CC 


• C c. - 


c cc 


1 <^ c 


c cc 


^O ' 


C cc 


' %- ^ l 


'C ' cc 


<c c 



K cjc: 

c <:c 

cc 



cC 



- ...*v< &H &*:&*$ c : £<<S 






cc %^c c ^- ^-^ 

c ^ <c ^ c c 

55- :VJ^ cc 



,< C~t C *s^ 



^ cc cc 

cc (C« 

Ct c.c cc 

C re .<SC< 






vrcc 



-<v c <=c cjec.<x.oc_<_ 

c.c c «c -C 
• cc- c cc, c. c 



Cv 
c 

cc 

. < C 

C 

1 c 

a c c^r^ 

cc < c c. 5 -- 

cc cc c < 



<rl c c < 



£r c< x cc «c c 

cc ( ( i- cc 



CC C Cere <C C C C 

CXC CCf C ■ C C c 
C C Crt CC C C 

c-c crc< c . c c c 

■ C C CsC< **££.$-£. /- 

Jt-C£ 
< c C 

C c c 

_C«c<<£ C< C 

c C C C CCC. Sr\ ■ 
- ■ c c C c '- CC C ■ 

; crc< ccc cc 
~< . cc « ££c c c 

c ' CC c CCC C c . 
<_C> CC cccCC C 
C'c CC cccccc c 
—re cc cc<icCc c< 
c CC CT^C^C 

o ccr c ccc c: <Q 



~c: ex tec ^ 

" CC CC cc_C CC/- ! 

- c>: cc err re c< A get « 

s£ <Fc & &SE X' 

"Cc ttT Cc^ 



cc c c C"j£ 



ex cc m cc c 

CC c C C C. t ( r 



: cc c c 

cc c c 

cc c c 

<: cc <<g < 

e cc c c 



c C CC' .« 

c c C < 

c c. cc c 

<: c cc <. 

: c <rc: r. 



c <jo ic cc:<r: c ^'CCC <: 



; cc cc cc 

ji c cc c c 
c <C C CC CC 

r cc cc cc c c 

ccc c cc crc 



• c <^C cC C Ct 

C CCC CCC cc 
C <C c c^ C 



c cc.c < .c CS^^^iv 
. CC ( <T c C CC C (C.CCC. 
r r r V t c^cc «cc_^C< 

— c c cc cccr 

^ c c cc c cc < 

C c ,: <r c C cc c cc - 
c v e cc < c ccc c, 

c cr , cc cc « -c c < 
CCf C C CCC o 
c cC C c C<r c « <C ^ ' 

f" • cC c" c_ cc c <»: <L « 

C Ccc-<«L'4L <f ' 
C ccc ^«c - -1 



- ,c 



C C 

C.cc < 



€L CC ^c 

C ' C cc <c 



<c cc / 
c cc c 

C CC < 



z. C CC X 
c c cc < 

C c C C( ' ' c 
t c c cc 
C C CC c 
<r c CC <c 
C C CC C 

: c cc <c c 
ccc CC c 

< c C c c C C 

■ : ( CC i vCC>> C 
- c cc< <cc c 
-. c cc c cc c 

.Cffcccr^'C 



CC C C ((CCCC o 
cC <: c_ CC C <3C <1 c< 

cc 

re c c ^^^15* 

cc; < C ^cc c : ^ 
I -C ccc c_ 

cc C' C ccc/C 

cc -cc I_C r ^c c 

cc ccc < 'cc C" 

c lC t(CC- 

cc CC C C'C c 

« <.cc C (T< C 

« ccC< C C(Ct 

cC « C '■ c C: rcc cc 
C< cc c ; ' C.' •- c <3 ■ 
« tc- c ■ «.'" "c C'. 
■ « < f C 
- ( <2C '•■< Cc . ^5_ •* 

cc cc ^cr^c 

<c <c CC 
c c c cc c« c <: c 

fifi Ire' 

c c < c cc c 



: cc ^^V>V 
cc c ccc C cc 
C Co cc c^c cc < 

C cc c <lC< cc «tl 

<r cc c^€c &c 

c<r << «3CC cc <ac 
rcc^c'cCCCc- c: 
:t cc cc ccc c< cc 

< CC CC CC Cc .C 

cc cc cc ccc cc c 

C Cc cC < 

^r c cc cc> 

C c < c c cC- c cc cc_ 

V. C cc C"c : CC C. .:■ 

C Ctf" C C'cCCvv Cc . 
C C <:c CC :cCCc CC^ 
<: c < c. c ccc* 
C <5C cTc CcC 
<L c c c c ere 
C C'C c C cC 
CCCCC CQC 
' c c c c ccc 
c cc ■ cc ceo: 

0C C ♦ CC ^cCJCC c 

^c c c ccCCC t 
. <: c cc ccccc 

CC cc tcccc 

c cc cc cccco : « c 



CC <( CC^CC 
CC cC CC'CC 
Cc cc Cc CC 

(; t re <"C CC 

CC Cc 

< 

Cc c 

r c ex CCcC 

P «c cc c 

< < c 

c '( 

c cC 

C cc • 

- CC 
• c 

SJCo c< 

ice ' c<t 
cc 



( 

ccc 

CCC( c 
CCCC C - 
CCC C c 



xc c c c 

'ccc: c c c 

(CCCCC 
■ cc.C < c c 

TcCC < 

_c it ; 
c*k cccc 



u 



41st Congress, ) HOUSE OF EEPEESEXTATIVES. f Repor* 
2d Session, ) \ No. 80. 



CUBA. 



June 14, 1870 — Ordered to be pi 




Mr. Banks, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, made the following 

EEPOBT: 

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred the petition of 
H. G. Eastman and one hundred and fifty four other citizens of Pough- 
keepsie, New York, presented by Hon. Mr. Ketcham, December 7, 1S69; 
the petition of citizens of Maryland, presented by Hon. Mr. Swarm, De- 
cember 9, 1869; the petition of citizens of Pennsylvania, presented by 
Hon. Mr. Cessna, December 13, 1869; the petition of A. Oakey Hail, 
mayor of New York City, and others, presented December 13, 1869; peti- 
tion of citizens of Philadelphia, presented by Hon. Mr. Randall, Decem- 
ber 20, 1869; petition of citizens of Scranton, Pennsylvania, presented 
by Hon. Mr. Woodward, December 20, 1869; petition of citizens of Han- 
cock County, Illinois, presented by Mr. Hawley, January 12, 1870; peti- 
tion of citizens of Kentucky, presented by Hon. Mr. Knott, January 12, 
1870; petition of 8. S. Hall, P. Preston, and sixty-eight others, presented 
by Hon. Mr. Logan, January 26, 1870; petition of sixty four citizens of 
Illinois, presented by Hon. 3Ir. Farnsworth, February 11, 1870; petition 
of sundry citizens of Tennessee, presented by Hon. Mr. Maynard, Feb- 
ruary 11, 1870 ; petition of forty-one hundred and thirteen citizens of 
Pennsylvania, presented by Hon. Mr. Kclley, February 19, 1870, and many 
others, amounting to 72,3S1 names, severally praying for the recognition 
of belligerent rights on the part of the Cubans, or the acknowledgment of 
the independence of Cuba; and also a resolution of inquiry relative to 
recognizing 'the belligerent rights of the Cubans, presented by Hon. Mr. 
Logan; a joint resolution in relation to the contest between the people of 
Cuba and the government of Spain, presented by Hon. Mr. Banks, Feb- 
ruary 10. 1870; a bill to amend the act entitled " An act in addition to 
the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, 
anil to repeal the acts therein mentioned,"' presented by Hon. Mr. Hamilton, 
February 23, 1870; a bill making ita misdemeanor to fit out or equip ships 
of war, <>r to sell or furnish arms or munitions of war, with intent that 
they shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince or state to e<>m- 
mit hostilities against the people of any province, district, or colony who 
are in a state of armed insurrection against such foreign prince or state, 
and providing for the forfeiture of such ship or vessel, a resolution of the 
senate <f Maryland relative to the revolution in Cuba ; petitions and 
resolutions of lodges of Masons of Flora, Chicago, Sprui ■ Bos- 

ton, Minonk, Jerseyville, Nauvoo, Chester, Washburn, a.: ' Delevuu, in 
the State of Illinois, i)i relation to (tic murder of citizens and Masons in 
Cuba, presented by Hon. Mr. Logan, April 21. L870; anil joint resolu- 
tion to authorize the President of the United States to submit proposi- 
tions to the Spanish government for a settlement of the difficulties in the 



2 CUBA. 

island of Cuba by arbitration or otherwise, presented by Hon. Mr. Prosser, 
June 6, 1870, have considered' the several propositions referred to the com- 
mittee, and, after mature deliberation thereupon, report, for the approval 
of the House, the folloioing — 

JOINT RESOLUTION in relation to the contest between the people of Cuba and the government of 

Spain. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and hereby is, author- 
ized and instructed to declare aud maintain a strictly impartial neutrality on the part 
of the government of the United States in the contest now existing between the people 
of Cuba and the government of the Kingdom of Spain. 

Sec. 2. And be it further resolved, That all provisions of the statute approved twen- 
tieth of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, entitled "An act in addition to the act 
for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and to repeal the acts 
therein mentioned," shall be construed to apply equally to each of the parties in the 
existing contest between the people of Cuba aud the government of Spain. 

Sec. 3. And be it further resolved, That the President is hereby authorized and re- 
quested to remonstrate against the barbarous manner in which the war in Cuba has 
been conducted, and, if he shall deem it expedient, to solicit the co-operation of other 
governments in such measures as he may deem necessary to secure from both contend- 
ing parties an observance of the laws of war recognized by all civilized nations. 

The object of these resolutions is — 
/ 1. The recognition of an existing armed contest for liberty in Cuba. 

2. The neutrality of the United States in that contest. 

3. To place Cubans upon an equal footing with Spaniards in regard 
to intercourse aud trade with the United States. 

4. To interpose the protest of the United States against the barbarous 
manner in which the war has been conducted. 

It is a misconception of fact to assume that by this action we grant 
belligerent rights to the Cubans. This government has no power to 
create, confer, or define the rights of belligerents. That can be done 
by the general consent of civilized governments only. They are defined 
by the law of nations. We are bound to observe them as the rule of 
the Christian world. The Cubans have an inalienable right to fight 
against oppression and for liberty. It does not depend upon the consent 
of governments oi^ men. It is our duty to recognize the fact of the 
contest and maintain our neutrality. The administration has already 
informed the government of Spain that the law of nations would justify 
our intervention in the contest in the interest of humanity; but inter- 
vention is the policy of personal, not of republican, governments. Im- 
partial neutrality is our duty. It would be criminal for us to strengthen 
the hand of the oppressor. If we cannot espouse the cause of liberty, 
we ought at least to stand neutral. Without a recognition of the con- 
test, neutrality is impossible. When we recognize its existence and 
declare our neutrality, the law of nations, the enlightened code of the 
civilized world, defines the rights and duties of neutral nations, and 
applies to the contestants the law of belligerents. This is the action 
recommended. It is in the interest of peace. It localizes the war, re- 
strains the power of the conqueror, protects the lives of the vanquished, 
shields non-combatants from the penalties of war, extends the authority 
of neutrals, and substitutes for the rapine and murder of barbarous 
ages the restraints which are now everywhere enforced by Christian 
nations. We believe this recognition to be consistent with our obliga- 
tions to Spain, with the law of nations, the interests of humanity, the 
law of justice, and to be demanded by every consideration of private 
and public duty. 

The recognition of existing war in Cuba by the United States can 



//~^-7^ 



CUBA. 3 

give no just cause of offense to Spain. The Spanish government recog- 
nized the rebellion against the United States sixty-live days alter the 
first shot was fired against Fort Sumter, and before a single life had 
been sacrificed by the armed forces of the contesting parties. The 
United States made no protest against the Spanish proclamation, which 
several times described the rebels as "belligerents," but commended it 
as a "friendly action." 

Mexico, Chili, and Colombia have already recognized the Cubans as 
entitled to the rights of belligerents under the laws of war, without 
protest on the part of Spain. Peru has recognized Cuba as an inde- 
pendent state ; yet Spaiu, so far from considering this action as cause 
of war, discontinued the war which she had long waged against Peru, 
claiming, even against the protest of Peru, that "the war with that 
power was ended," and that Spain could not "be induced to recommence 
it." (Ex. Doc. 160, page 51.) 

It is not to be assumed that the United States, which suffers from the 
contest in Cuba more than any other nation, can be deprived of rights 
which every other American state is at liberty to exercise, not only 
without disturbing its peace, but without protest or complaint on the 
part of Spain. 

It is not the province of this report to speculate upon the probable 
result of the contest in Cuba; bat, after a careful survey of the situa- 
tion, it will not be found to be more desperate or doubtful, in the view 
of its enemies, than the American Eevolution, was theught to be by the 
best and firmest of its friends, Edmund Burke, nearly two years after 
the Declaration of Independence, when we had received, with two excep- 
tions, the friendly recognition of every European government. 

" The affairs of America," said Mr. Burke, " seem to be drawing to a crisis. The 
Howes are at this time in possession of, or able to awe, the whole middle coast of 
America, from Delaware to the western boundary of Massachusetts Bay. The naval 
barrier on the side of Canada is broken. A great tract is open for the supply of the 
troops. The river Hudson opens a way into the heart of the provinces, and nothing 
can, in all probability, prevent an early and offensive campaign. What the Americana 
have done is, in their circumstances, truly astouishing; it is, indeed, infinitely more 
than I expected from them. But, having done so much for some short time, I began to 
entertain an opinion that they might do more. It is now, however, evident that they 
cannot look standing armies in the face. They are inferior in everything, even in 
numbers. There seem by the best accounts not to be above ten or twelve thousand 
men at most in their grand army. The rest are militia, and not wonderfully well com- 
posed or disciplined. They decline a general engagement ; prudently enough, if their 
object had been to make the war attend upon a treaty of good terms of subjection : but; 
when they look further, this will not do. An army that is obliged at all times and in 
all situations to decline an engagement may delay their ruin, but can never defend 
their country.'' (Burke's Works, vol. 5, p. 125.) 

The following statement was prepared in February by the direction of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and is now presented to the House 
n support of the resolutions which have been reported: 

ORIGIN OF THE CONTEST.* 

The present struggle for independence in Cuba originated exclusively 
with the Cubans, and in no manner, directly or indirectly, from the inter- 
vention of the people or governments of foreign states. OpoD receiving 
telegraphic intelligence of the revolution of the 29th September, 1868, in 
Spain, they sought, by a formal adhesion to the new government of the 
mother country, to obtain an extension of their political rights. To 
prevent an appeal to arms on the part of those distant from the capital 

*The references are to the pages of the correspondence transmitted to the House by 

the President, March,lS70, Ex. Doe. No. 160, except where other authorities are specified. 



4 CUBA 

still loyal to Spain, a large number of influential and wealthy Cubans 
endeavored to obtain from General Lersundi an assurance that the 
Cubans were not to be, as in former revolutions, deprived of the privi- 
leges which the new government was expected to confer upon the Span- 
ish nation. Their appeal, made to avoid bloodshed, was insolently 
repelled, and all expectation that Cubans would participate in the 
advantages of the revolution was denied them. They asked the privilege 
of popular meetings for the discussion of public -questions and the 
measures best calculated to secure to the Cuban people the benefits of 
the advanced political creed which had been proclaimed by the revolu- 
tionary government of Spain, but the Captain General decided that such 
meetings were improper. "No convictions," he said, "were gained by 
debate, and sometimes the sacrifice of a few lives would save greater 
and more painful losses." (Doc. 160, p. 173.) His action received the 
approval of the Spanish ministry, and the war ensued. It is of such 
events that revolutions are born, and from such seed sprung the present 
contest for liberty in Cuba. 

The people rose under Cespedes, at Yara, in October, 1868. A con- 
vention, of which Cespedes was president, assembled at Guaimaro the 
10th of April, 1869. A constitution was adopted and officers of govern- 
ment elected. The island was divided into four states, Oriente, Cama- 
guay, Las Yillas, and Occidente. Three of them, which cover three- 
quarters of the territory, and contain a million of people, or two-thirds 
of the population, are now mainly under the control of the Cubans. 
Each state has a civil government, and is subdivided into districts, 
prefectships, and sub-prefectships, with officers chosen by the people. 

The government thus improvised was not without legitimate popular 
foundation. Its elective constituencies were based upon long-existing, 
benevolent, secret associations, which naturally attracted and faithfully 
represented that portion of the people who had been excluded from 
favor and power by the Spanish authorities. Such imperfect organiza- 
tions often represent popular opinion better than the ordinary elections 
of established political societies. It is this fact, perhaps, which recently 
led Captain General De Eodas to bring those still remaining in Cuba 
under the harsh edicts of his relentless administration. 

In these states there are civil governments, tribunals of justice, 
churches, public journals, schools, post offices, institutions for the 
poor, and local administrations as permanent as can exist in time of rev- 
olution. With military passes, the people move through the country 
with safety. They begin to manufacture arms and munitions of war. 
Their industry is generally uninterrupted. They estimate the surplus 
industrial products of the last twenty-one months in these three in- 
dependent states at ten or twelve million dollars. 

They do not fortify and defend the towns, because their possession 
would be useless, and their defense a senseless waste of the lives and 
property of their own people. The towns are without value to the 
Spaniards, except in name. With a few exceptions, the cities are near 
the coast; and, upon an island whose average breadth is less than sixty- 
five miles, the Spaniards can easily concentrate their whole force, by 
the aid of the navy, upon any fortified place. Such a war would be in- 
sanity for the Cubans. That they avoid it is to them an honor and a guar- 
antee of success. The Cubans possess the country and represent the peo- 
ple. The strength of the Spaniards is in their undisputed control of 
the seas adjacent to the island, by means of which, with the aid of the 
United States, they occupy, without opposition from the Cubans, sev- 
eral of the principal towns of the interior. 



CUBA. 



POriTLATION. 



The population of Cuba, according' to the latest Spanish authorities, 
is 1,230,000, which is divided as follows : 

White Eace. — Creoles born in the island 550, 000 

Spaniards born in Europe 75, 000 

Floating population 10, 000 

Bed Eace. — Natives of the island and Asiatics 15, 000 

Black Eace.— Free mulattoes 120, 000 

Free blacks 88, 000 

Slaves, (mulattoes and negroes) 372, 000 

Total 1,230,000 



The number of slaves stated is far below the actual truth. Their interest 
in dwarfing it is manifest. The number of blacks brought from Africa 
since the international treaty against the slave trade in 1817 exceeds 
600,000. The British consul at Havana reported to the British Parlia- 
ment that the importation for 18G0 exceeded 20,000 slaves. The actual 
population of Cuba, upon the estimate of the most intelligent of its people, 
exceeds 1,600,000 souls, of whom between 600,000 and 700,000 are slaves.* 
And of this population a million and a half, including nearly the whole 
of the Cuban people, are in sympathy with the contest for independence. 

THE EFFECT OF THE REVOLUTION UPON THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY. 

The Cuban constitution declares that " all inhabitants of the island are 
entirely free." An assembly of the people had previously proclaimed : 
" Slavery is abolished." The declaration of independence of October, 
1868, expressed their desire for universal emancipation. The American 
consul general at Havana appears to have made unsuccessful search for 
some declaration against emancipation, for he says in his dispatch to the 
Secretary of State, 16th of September, 1869 : 

It does not appear to me to be likely that any other copies than that I now send of 
the constitution, and those sent by Mr. La Reiutre and Mr. Hall, of the proclamations 
issued, can have been published here that are differently worded with reference to 
glavery, for these, in the manner in which they have been procured, appear to have 
been designed for circulation on the island rather than especially to be sent abroad. 
(Page 142.) 

There is no probability of the immediate abolition of slavery in Cuba 
by the Spanish government. The American consul general in Cuba 
says lie does not find any expression of belief in official quarters that 
it would be practicable; and he does not think Spain designs to treat 
the subject in that way. (Pages 148 and 119.) The American minister 
at Madrid says the Spanish minister of state informed him that in 
this Cuban conflict the liberal leaders of Spain "stood before the 
world as opposed to self-government, and resisting the abolition of 
slavery."' (Page 119.) ,* 

The Spanish colonial minister read a plan of government for Pftrto 
Bico to the Cortes, November 24, 1869, after the dissolution by public 
decree of two commissions for reforms in that island, in consequence of 
disagreement upon the subject of slavery, (pp. (>(> and L61,) winch de- 
clares that "so long as slavery exists, all public discussion with regard 
to it is prohibited. 1 '' (Page 162.) 

The American minister in a dispatch, 25th September, 1869, says a 

v Revue dea Deux Mondes, 15th November, 1869, p. 433. 



6 CUBA. 

decree will soon be issued "initiating" the abolition of slavery by giving 
freedom to all negroes born after the date of this decree. But even that 
is not yet issued. (Page 145.) 

The colonial minister has since declared to the Cortes that " the 
government would not bring forward any measure of reform for Cuba 
until the last hostile band was dispersed, and the insurgents had lost 
all hope." (Page 161.) G-eneral Prim said to General Sickles, 12th of 
August, that no human power could obtain from the Spanish people the 
most insignificant concession while the rebellion maintained its footing. 

Seiior Bercerra, colonial minister, in proposing a commission for 
reforms in Porto Bico, speaks of the discretion with which liberty should 
be accorded to persons whom it had been considered a crime to call 
human beings, and for whom labor had been a permanent sign of servi- 
tude; and that such changes must receive serious and conscientious 
study. 

The more recent declarations made to the Cortes upon the subject of 
slavery recognize its existence for an indefinite period, and if they 
should be approved, which is improbable, would be accompanied by a 
corresponding extension of the slave trade. 

There is, therefore, no just ground for anticipating its abolition by the 
action of Spain until the Cubans are destroyed, and then only upon a 
plan which would perpetuate slavery and the slave trade for three gen- 
erations. The importation of slaves would continue long after the birth 
of the first free child, whose advent is to be postponed until the sur- 
render of the Cubans. And this is the plan of emancipation proposed 
by the liberal leaders of Spain. 

The American consul at Matanzas, in a dispatch to the Secretary of 
State, November 18, 1869, says that the Cubans claim that the African 
slave trade will only definitely cease with the unconditional abolition of 
slavery in the island. (Hall to Seward, p. 71.) Of a slave population 
numbering six or seven hundred thousand, two hundred thousand 
speak the languages of the tribes of Africa. 

The government can do nothing in the way of enfranchisement for 
Cuba, said Mr. Layard to Mr. Sickles, December 29, 1869, while the 
rebellion is flagrant, without alienating the "Spanish party" in the 
island. The " Spanish party " is described by Mr. Sickles as a portion 
of the slaveholders, who are the most influential partisans of the home 
government, and the persons employed in the colonial administration. 
(Page 67.) Emancipation of slaves cannot be separated from other ques- 
tions now paramount, said General Prim to the American minister. 
(Page 26.) 

The maintenance of slavery seems, therefore, to be one of the chief 
motives of "the Spanish party" for resisting the independence of the 
island. Mr. Sickles says, in a dispatch, December 29, 1869, that if 
slavery is abolished in Porto Bico, the Spanish party will have fewer 
motives to resist the independence of Cuba ; for with slavery abolished 
in Porto Bico, there would be little hope of perpetuating it in Cuba. 
(Page 67.) The Cubans, on the contrary, seek their own liberty by giving 
liberty to the slave. "They believe," says Mr. Hall, in a dispatch to 
Mr. Seward, November 18, 1869, " that while slavery exists there will 
be no government established in Cuba in which they can have a voice," 
(p. 71 ;) and the judgment of Spaniards and natives in Cuba is con- 
firmed by that of the Spanish provisional government. " The aboli- 
tion of slavery," said General Prim to Mr. Sickles, August 21, 1869, 
"will immediately follow the emancipation of the island." (Page 30.) 



CUBA. 7 

The principles involved in this struggle, therefore, are manifest. The 
people of Cuba fight for — 

Independence of Spain; 

The right of self-government ; 

Keligions liberty; 

The abolition of slavery ; 

Universal suffrage ; 

The emancipation of industry and trade; 

The freedom of speech and the press ; 

The rights of assembly and petition ; 

For general education; and 

" All other inalienable rights of the people." 

They fight for the termination of European governments on this con- 
tinent. They fight against Spanish tyranny; against monarchical, aris- 
tocratic and personal government; against dignities and titles; against 
the corrupt duplication of offices ; against slavery and the slave trade ; 
and against the government at Madrid, Avhich, to use the language of 
General Prim, " in this contest stands before the world opposed to 
self-government, and resisting the abolition of slavery." It is to aid the 
Spanish cause that Spain appeals to us, and it is against her policy, 
revolting to the spirit of the age and the theory and practice of the 
American government from its foundation, that we protest. The liberal 
sentiment of the civilized world upon this subject is expressed by Mr. 
Laboulaye in his introduction to Bluntschli's Code of International Law. 
" Spain cannot be permitted," he says, "to invade Africa with war and 
pillage, to the injury of the whole world, in order that she may steal 
some unhappy blacks and send them to die in Cuba. She ought not 
to be allowed, in pursuit of her abject interests, to disregard the rights 
of the whole human race." (Bluntschli's Code of International Law. 
introduction, p. 14.) 

THE SPANISH WAR FORCES IN CUBA. 

In October, 1868, there were 19,760 Spanish soldiers in Cuba. General 
Prim stated to the Spanish Cortes, 30th November, 1869, that Spain 
had sent 20,966 troops of the regular army, 2,600 marines, 1,371 re- 
cruits for existing regiments, and 9,563 volunteers — a total of 34,500 men, 
to re-enforce the army and navy of Spain. The American consul at 
Havana reports to this government, June 4, 1869, that volunteers 
have been organized from the Spanish residents in Cuba, numbering 
about 30,000. 

There were, in October, 1868, 14 men-of-war in Cuban waters, mount- 
ing 128 guns and manned by 15,000 men. This sea force has been 
strengthened, according to the declaration of General Prim, by 2 iron- 
clads, 4 frigates, 8 war steamers of large tonnage, 4 war brigs, 14 
war ships, manned by 15,000 sailors ; and 30 gunboats, mounting one 
100-pound Parrott gun each, which were built and manned in the United 
States. The Spanish forces employed in Cuba since October, 1868, 
number from 90,000 to 100,000 men, of all arms. The Spanish author- 
ities estimate their force at 107,400 men. 

Vast quantities of war stores have been transported from Spain and 
from New York to Cuba; and contracts are said to have been made at 
New York for the further delivery of munitions of war to the amount of 
•s70t),(HH>. 

General Prim asked the attention of the Cortes to the significant 
movement of this immense mass of men and munitions of war, which 



8 CUBA. 

would have tested, he said, the strength of any government, however 
peaceful or powerful. 

CUBAN FORCES. 

The Cubans had at Yara, October 11, 1868, 147 men; 4,000 the 12th of 
October; 9,700 in November, and 12,000 in December. They have now 
10,000 well-armed men. There are 60,000 enrolled and drilled, but with- 
out arms. They claim that with a supply of arms they can put into the 
field 100,000 or 200,000 fighting men — citizens, farmers, and emancipated 
blacks— men of the country fighting for its liberties. 

MILITARY OPERATIONS. 

These hostile forces have not forgotten the objects for which they were 
organized. From the declaration of Cuban independence at Yara to this 
hour there has not been a week, scarcely a day, which has not been 
marked in the calendar of war by fierce and bloody contests. No revo- 
lution presents a more constant and determined struggle. Although 
the Cubans were undisciplined and unaccustomed to the use of arms, of 
which in the beginning they had few or none, and their enemy was com- 
posed of the best troops of the army and navy of Spain, whose places in 
the military posts of the island had been supplied by the resident Span- 
iards organized as volunteers, the Cubans nevertheless have been ready 
to meet their foes in skirmish, combat, or battle, and have shown them- 
selves as brave in attack as defense. A record of two hundred skir- 
mishes, combats, engagements, and battles, occurring from the 11th of 
October, 1868, to the defeat of Puello and Goyeneche, which terminated 
the campaign of December, 1869, and January, 1870, give an honorable 
distinction to the struggle of the Cubans for independence that would 
in nowise discredit a people long accustomed to self-government or 
trained to the use of arms. 

It is unnecessary, for the purposes we have in view, to speculate upon 
the advantages gained by Spaniards or Cubans in these constantly- 
repeated hostile encounters. The record is presented as indisputable 
proof of the long-continued existence of civil war in Cuba ; but we recall 
the incidents of the campaign of the past winter, in which, after exhaust- 
ive preparations by the Spanish government and the most confident 
assurances of the speedy termination of the war, her best generals, Puello 
and Goyeneche, in a concerted campaign under Yalmaseda, were both 
defeated, the former with the loss of thirteen hundred out of twenty- 
seven hundred men, as evidence of the spirit and capacity of the Cubans 
for successful war. The Spanish campaign in Cuba has thus far failed, 
writes Mr. Sickles from Madrid to the Secretary of State. " Their great 
reliance is now on the gunboats from the United States." (Page 6Q.) 

WHAT HAS BEEN THE RESULT? 

These conflicts have had various results, the exact truth of which 
cannot be ascertained, nor is it necessary for our purpose — which is to 
consider the present condition of the island as to peace or war. The 
official reports of the Spanish government state that 16,980 Cubans have 
been killed in action, 9,113 wounded, 2,092 prisoners captured, and that 
16,500 have surrendered and received pardon, making a total of 44,685 
men lost to the Cuban cause. These statements are doubtless greatly 
exaggerated. 



CUBA. y 

An official report of the Captain General states that the Spanish army 
lost 14,000 men in 1869 by disease and battle. (Page 109.) 

Owing to imperfect communications, the Cubans have reported their 
principal actions only. In the early part of the war, the people rallied 
for a light, and separated when it was over, leaving no means of esti- 
mating the losses they might have sustained. It is not possible, there- 
fore, to give an exact estimate of their loss in the numerous conflicts in 
which they have been engaged ; but it is not doubted that it has been 
very great. 

Such warlike organizations, preparations, conflicts, losses of men, and 
destruction of property are wholly inconsistent with the idea of "a mere 
civil commotion," as it has been regarded by our government, or " a do- 
mestic disturbance," as it has been represented by Spain. The facts, 
taken by themselves, and still more when their inevitable consequences 
are considered, are absolute proofs of protracted, barbarous, and bloody 
war. 

IT IS REGARDED AS WAR BY SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES, 
AND IS SO INTENDED BY CUBA. 

The documents transmitted to the House of Representatives recog- 
nize, on the part of the Spanish, American, and Cuban governments, a 
condition of war. The Secretary of State says, in a letter to the Span- 
ish minister, April 17, 1809, that a portion of the people of Cuba have 
been in arms against the government of Spain for more than six 
months. (Page 80.) 

The proclamation of the Captain General, dated July 8, 1869, declares 
that the war of insurrection against Spain demands speedy and exem- 
plary punishment, and decrees the penalty of death upon those who may 
be captured in arms. 

A proclamation from the Cuban secretary of state, May 4, 1869, pub- 
lished by the Spaniards, declares that " from this time forward all lib- 
erties are established in their widest sense, subject, however, to the state 
of war in which the public now is." (Page 65.) 

The Spanish minister of state says, in reply to the American minister 
at Madrid, 11th of October, 1869, that if they have not realized their 
desire to mitigate the horrors of war, it is owing to the conduct of their 
enemies, who have so much contributed to prolong the insurrection; 
but that mercy and humanity have been generally recommended in the 
conduct of the war. 

The American consul general at Havana informs the Secretary of 
State, June 4, 1869, that the Spanish residents, dissatisfied with the 
conduct of the war, are inclined to take the management of affairs into 
their own hands. "They contribute," he says, "largely to the support 
of the war, by money and by service as volunteers, and desire to seethe 
war ended." (Page 190.) 

The American consul at Santiago do Cuba informs the Secretary of 
State, June 19,1869, that the Spanish government applies the mosl rig- 
orous and barbarous laws, which have made it a war of extermination, 
shocking to every civilized nation. (Page OS.) 

Count Valmaseda issued a decree, April 4, 1869, which declares that 
there is no longer a place for neutrality; that those who were not lor 
him were against him; and, that his soldiers might know how to dis- 
tinguish them, they were called upon to observe the orders they them- 
selves carried : 

1. Every man, from the age of fifteen years upward, foundaway from 



10 CUBA. 

his habitation, who does not prove a justified motive therefor, will be 
shot. 

2. Every habitation unoccupied will be burned by the troops. 

3. Every habitation, from which does not float a white flag, as a signal 
that its occupants desire peace, will be reduced to ashes. (Page 83.) 

The Secretary of State, May 19, is instructed by the President to pro- 
test, in the most forcible manner, against such a mode of warfare, and 
demands that persons having a right to claim the protection of the 
United States shall not be sacrificed or injured in the conduct of hos- 
tilities upon this basis. In a note to the American minister at Madrid, 
May 11, 1869, the Secretary of State protests against the " infamous- 
proclamation" of Valmaseda, (p. 84 ;) and he is instructed, (10th of Au- 
gust, 1869,) solemnly to protest, in the name of the President, against 
carrying on the war in Cuba hi this barbarous way. (Page 104.) 

The American minister at Madrid reminded the Spanish minister of 
state that this government had before remonstrated against certain 
proclamations of the Captain General of Cuba, that threaten a mode of 
warfare at variance with the recognized customs of civilized nations ; 
and he protests with all solemnity, in the name of the President of the 
United States, against the deplorable excesses which have thus far char- 
acterized the war in Cuba, and insists, in the name of humanity, while 
hostilities are prolonged, that the war shall be conducted in a manner 
more in accordance with the humane and Christian sentiment of the age. 
For nearby a year, he says, the insurgents have maintained themselves 
against all the forces which Spain and the Catalan volunteers have been 
able to put into the field against them. In the judgment of the Presi- 
dent, in which the whole civihzed world will coincide, the time has come, 
he says, when this struggle should be carried on in a more humane way. 
To shoot prisoners of war simply because they are taken with arms in their 
hands, is not in accordance with the custom of the Christian world. We 
have a right, on our part, to insist that Spain shall carry on this war 
hereafter in a manner more in accordance with the humane and Chris- 
tian sentiments of the age. (Pages 105 and 106.) 

General Prim, at another time, said his colleagues did not realize the 
difficulties of carrying on a war in America. (Mr. Sickles to Mr. Fish, 
16th August, p. 25.) It is also known that Captain General Dulce 
sent two commissions, under flag of truce, to Cespedes, president and 
general-in-chief, to negotiate for a cessation of hostilities ; which com- 
mission passed through the lines and held conference with him. (Page 
170.) 

IT IS CALLED "CIVIL WAR" BY SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. 

The Spanish minister said to Mr. Sickles, 12th August, 1869, that "in 
face of civil war" it had been impossible to carry out the reforms pro- 
posed in Cuba. (Page 20.) The correspondence transmitted to the 
House states that the President, June 29, 1869, tendered the good offices 
of the United States to the government at Madrid, for the purpose of 
bringing to a close the "civil war" now raging in the Island of Cuba. 
(Page 15.) 

The term " civil war," the Secretary of State says, was used advisedly, 
in recognition of a condition of the contest which could not much longer 
justify withholding the rights of belligerents from the revolutionary 
party. (Page 16.) 

The Secretary of State, in a dispatch to the Spanish minister, October 
13, 1869, says, that the "civil war" in Cuba has continued for a year; 



, 



CUBA. 11 

battle after battle lias been fought, thousands of lives have been sacri- 
ficed, and the result is still in suspense ; and the minister is reminded of 
the frequency with which, in the interest of humanity, he has been 
obliged to remonstrate against the atrocities and cruelties which have 
attended the conflict in Cuba for the last year. The principle of neu- 
trality has controlled the proceedings of the administration, he says, 
with regard to the war in Cuba ; but he cannot admit the indefinite pro- 
traction of a conflict such as has existed for the past year in tbat island — 
a conflict marked with cruelties, destruction, and devastation, without 
parallel in modem civilized warfare. (Page 137.) 

The American minister writes to Mr. Fish, September 10, 1800, that 
he has been assured by the president of the Cortes, that among the first 
subjects brought before that body will be the cruel and vindictive man- 
ner in which the war in Cuba is prosecuted. Captain General Concha 
also expressed to him his abhorrence of the treatment of prisoners of 
war and other captives in Cuba. (Page 130.) 

He informs the Secretary of State that he had expressed the hope that 
the Spanish government had taken measures to prevent those barbarous 
and cruel executions that had hitherto marked the progress of the war ; 
and that the sufferers in these outrages were not Cuban insurgents only, 
but Americans, and in many instances persons entirely innocent of any 
participation in the insurrection. He suggested to General Prim that 
the adoption of the system of cartel, and the treatment of prisoners ac- 
cording to the rules of ordinary warfare, would at once divest the war 
of its savage character. (Page 115.) 

The Spanish colonial minister informed the Cortes, October 6, 18G0, 
that the government would adopt necessary measures to cause the sup 
pression of the insurrection in Cuba to proceed in accordance with the 
forms of "regular warfare." (Page 161.) 

WHAT INTEREST HAVE THE UNITED STATES IN THIS STRUGGLE? 

The immediate proximity of Cuba to the United States gives to these 
grave events an importance which cannot be fully appreciated by any 
other state, European or American. The Spanish government seeks 
here the re-enforcement of its navy; its war supplies; the repair of its 
war vessels ; and, through the public journals, a defense for the harsh 
measures adopted to maintain its sovereignty. The Cubans appeal to 
our people for sympathy and support in their unequal struggle for lib- 
erty and independence. The Cuban question becomes, therefore, an 
American question, and the government of the United States is con- 
stantly compelled to interfere, in behalf of its citizens, against the unjust 
decrees of the authorities and people of Spain ; and for the protection 
of the lives of innocent and unoffending Americans, as well as to excuse 
by argument the almost universal sympathy which is felt, and, in part, 
expressed, by the American people for the cause of liberty in Cuba. 
Mr. Martos said to Mr. Sickles that the welfare of Cuba " was more im- 
portant to the United States than to the mother country." (Page61.) 
We cannot recall all the cases in which the intervention of this govern- 
ment lias been demanded for the protection of American citizens and 
American interests. 

The consul general at Santiago de Cuba informs the Secretary of 
State, .Tune 1!>, 1869, that a Dative of New Orleans ami two naturalized 
American citizens, part of the expedition of the steamer lVr.it, taken 
prisoners at Ramon, were publicly shot, without trial, at Santiago de 
Cuba. (Page 97.) 



12 CUBA. 

Speakman, a native of Pennsylvania, a perfectly innocent man, was 
cruelly murdered "after tlie formality of a trial," the Secretary of State 
says, " that amounted only to a farce." Many others have been exe- 
cuted under circumstances of equal barbarity. The brutal butchery of 
Green wald, because he was thought to be an American, and the treat- 
ment his dead body received from the authorities at Havana, as well as 
the attempted assassination of other American citizens who were his 
companions, is too recent to require a detailed statement. 

The consul general at Havana transmits to the Assistant Secretary of 
State, August 21, 1869, an account of the recent murder of prominent 
citizens of Santiago de Cuba with their friends and attendants — twenty 
in all — by order, it is stated, of a subordinate officer of the Spanish 
army, while being conveyed as political prisoners to the headquarters of 
Count Valmaseda, the commander-in-chief of the eastern department of 
the island. (Page 121.) 

The officers of our government report that the treatment of the pa- 
triots by the Spaniards applies both to Cubans and foreigners ; but it 
appears that their ferocity is chiefly felt by Americans. 

Admiral Hoff, who was sent by the President to Cuba, with a vessel 
of war, to investigate the case of Speakinan, reports that Great Britain's 
laws of citizenship had enabled her to obtain from Spain the entire rev- 
ocation of the proclamation of the 24th March, 1869 ; which fact seemed 
to be known and observed by the Spaniards throughout the island, and 
gave British subjects greater consideration when captured or wrecked 
upon the Cuban coast. (Page 103.) 

The Secretary of State instructs the American minister at Madrid to 
call the attention of the Spanish government to the report of Admiral 
Hoff, and to say that "we shall expect citizens of the United States to 
be treated with as much consideration, and to enjoy as broad rights, as 
the citizens of any other country." (Page 104.) 

The President stated in his late annual message that a schooner of the 
United States had been arrested on the high seas by a Spanish frigate, 
and two passengers taken from it were carried as prisoners to Cuba. 
The government protested against the act; and the men were released. 
The Captain General of Cuba subsequently (July 7) issued a proclama- 
tion authorizing search of neutral vessels on the high seas. After re- 
monstrance by the American government, the proclamation was modi- 
fied by limiting the Spanish cruisers to the rights conferred by the treaty 
of 1795 ; and after further remonstrance this proclamation appears to 
have been withdrawn. (Message, 1869, p. 8.) 

Captain General, Dulce, 24th March, 1869, issued a proclamation 
declaring that all vessels captured in Spanish waters, on the high 
seas, or near to the island, having on board men, arms, or effects that 
could in any manner be used to promote the insurrection, should be 
treated as pirates ; and all such persons, without regard to their number, 
should be immediately executed. 

The Secretary of State, April 3, 1869, informed the Spanish minister 
that the United States claimed the right of carrying to the enemies of 
Spain, whether Spanish subjects, or citizens of other countries, merchan- 
dise not contraband of war, and articles contraband of war subject to 
the right only of capture by Spain, and could not consent to the punish- 
ment of any American citizen for the exercise of this privilege, secured 
to him by the law of nations and by treaties. (Page 75.) 

Captain General Cabalero de Eodas, upon this protest, issued a 
decree, July 7, in substitution for that of March 24, and three other 
decrees of prior date, substantially reaffirming their provisions, and 



CUBA. 13 

expressing the hope that it would be satisfactory to the government of 
the United States. 

The Secretary of State informs the Spanish minister, July 16, that 
this decree (7th duly) assumes powers and rights over the trade and 
commerce of other peoples inconsistent with a state of peace, and to 
which the United States can only be expected to allow their vessels to 
be subjected when Spain avows herself to be in a state of war, or shall 
be manifestly exercising the rights conceded only to belligerents in time 
of war, and the Spanish minister is informed that the continuance of 
this decree will be regarded by the United States as a recognition by 
Spain of a state of war with Cuba. And the Secretary of State desires 
to know whether the "insurrection which the United States have hitherto 
treated only as a civil commotion within the dominions of Spain, that 
did not give rise to what are understood as belligerent rights, on the 
part of either party to the conflict," is regarded by Spain as a state of 
war in whicli'she claims the rights of a belligerent. 

In consequence of this demand, General de Eodas modified the decree 
of the 7th of July, by the suppression of the sixth article only, relating 
to the search of neutral vessels on the high seas; but the provision that 
individuals suspected of being in the service of the insurrection who 
might be captured with arms, with the crews of their vessels, were to be 
treated as pirates, is still retained and enforced. (Pages 113 and 114.) 
The government had before protested against the general provisions of 
these decrees "in the interest of civilization and humanity." The sup- 
pression of the sixth article in nowise changed their barbarous char- 
acter. 

Captain General Eodas, ou the 28th of September, 1860, issued 
another decree, which declares that if any person be found without a 
passport on board a vessel about to start from a Cuban port, he should 
be liable to a fine of $100, and the master of the vessel to a fine of 8200. 

The Secretary of State informs the American consul at Havana that 
the government of the United States cannot acquiesce in the application 
of this decree to citizens of the United States, especially to those who 
may be passengers on board vessels which merely touch at Havana on 
the way to some other port. The application of the decree to passengers 
on board the steamers which ply between New York and New Orleans, 
he says, would be particularly offensive: and he instructs the consul 
general, with firmness and with courtesy, to protest against the indis- 
criminate execution of that decree. (Page 154k) 

This decree was modified 10th of November by merely limiting its 
application to passengers, whether or not Americans, embarking in the 
ports of the island. (Page 155.) 

A proclamation of April 1, 1869, by Captain General Dulce, declares 
that all contracts for the sale of every description of property, without 
revision of government, are null and void; and that all individuals, 
merchants, brokers, presidents and directors of corporations violating 
this decree would be subject to punishment under the penal code of 
Spain. 

The Secretary of State, 30th of April, demands a modification of this 
decree, so that it shall not be applicable to property of citizens of the 
United States; but no modification appears to have beeo accorded. 
(Pages 82 and 83.) 

More recently the American steamer Aspinwall was seized by a Spanish 
warvessel, on the high seas, upon the suspicion that she had arms and am- 
munition for the insurgents, in direct violation of Internationa] law and 
treaty stipulation. She had no contraband goods on board, and was re- 



14 CUBA. 

leased after having been taken to Havana; but no reparation lias yet 
been made in answer to tbe demands of this government for the wrong 
done to onr commerce and the national flag. 

Reference has been made to but few of the many harsh and cruel de- 
crees issued by the government of Spain during the progress of the 
war, yet they are sufficient to show the character of the struggle, and 
the direct interest which the people of the United ' States, at home and 
abroad, have in the grave issues which are to be decided in Cuba. It 
is also to be remembered that, notwithstanding the constant protests of 
our government, these decrees stand substantially as they were issued ; 
and that they are executed, not according to instructions of the gov- 
ernment of Madrid, but in the ferocious spirit of the Catalan volun- 
teers, without regard to the conclusions to which the Spanish and 
American governments may arrive. 

The American consul general at Havan a recently received from the Brit- 
ish naval officers the assurance of their protection and the offer of a 
file of marines to protect him whenever it became necessary to seek his 
safety on board a British man-of-war. And, still later, the American 
vice-consul at Santiago de Cuba was called to account for dispatches 
sent to his government, and published by the order of Congress, by the 
unauthorized and irresponsible volunteers who govern Cuba ; and, under 
the advice of the Spanish governor, who was unable to protect him, 
sought his safety from personal violence by taking refuge on board a 
French frigate, under the protection of French naval officers. 

THE PROBABLE ACTION OF SPAIN IN CUBA. 

Adhering strictly to the traditional policy of this government, it has 
been the wish of the people to avoid any participation in this contest; 
nevertheless, it should be said that their sympathy for the Cubans 
and their prayers for their success are wellnigh universal. They have 
cherished confident hopes that the necessities of the case and the justice 
of their cause would lead the Spanish nation to concede to the Cuban 
people the liberties they had, by revolution, secured for themselves. 
This, we are assured, has been the wish of some of the prominent 
leaders of the late revolution, and is still the hope of the liberal party 
and press of Spain, as it is of other European states. 

The popular organ of the volunteers in Havana is the Voz de Cuba. 
That paper informed its readers, 20th September, 1869, that not 
alone the newspapers of the United States, the London Times, La 
Patrie of Paris, or the republican journals of Madrid urge the sep- 
aration of Cuba from Spain, but that thoroughly Spanish and con- 
servative publications of high standing, which exercise great influence 
over public opinion, now counsel Spain to the cession of the island ; 
such as the Diario cle Barcelona, which from its age, its influence, its 
moderation and practical good sense, is read with interest in all the 
Catalan provinces, and in foreign states, which lately made the follow- 
ing declaration: "In our judgment, no other resource remains to us 
but to open negotiations with the United States for the cession to them 
of our Antilles." (Mr. Plumb to Mr. Fish, 21st September, 1SG9, p. 
144.) 

The Cubans informed Captain General Dulce, the most liberal of the 
Spanish officers, early in 1869, that if he would concede the independ- 
ence of the island, they would unite cordially with the Spaniards in 
its self-government. But separation from the mother country was re- 



CUBA. 15 

fused, and the Cubans, not having- faith in the power of Spain to estab- 
lish the reforms promised them, rejected its proposals. (Page 92.) 

The colonial minister declared to the Cortes, October 6, 1800, their 
determination to sacrifice the last man, the last cent, and the last cart- 
ridge sooner than to suffer detriment in relation to the integrity of 
Spanish territory. (Page 161.) 

By the project of reform for Porto Eico, read to the Cortes November 
25, I860, all discussions that tend to promulgate ideas touching a sep- 
aration of the island from the mother country, or designed to impair the 
integrity of the Spanish territory, and all discussion in regard to slavery, 
so long as it shall continue to exist, is prohibited. (Page 162.) 

The Spanish minister of state said to Mr. Sickles, October 8, 1869, 
that Spain did not and could not see in Cuba the sentiment and capacity 
of independence; and, therefore, if she should consent to a separation 
from that rich and ancient colony, she would not have the consolation of 
giving existence to a new nation, but the remorse of leaving a people of 
her own language and race to miserably perish and disappear. Spain 
could not admit that the majority of Cubans incline to separation from 
the mother country; but that a turbulent and blind minority, excited 
and aided by filibusters and pirates, aspire to overcome the general 
will of their countrymen; and this was the sole cause of the discord 
they deplored. (Page 156.) There is, therefore, no reasonable hope of 
permanent peace from the voluntary action of the Spanish ministry. 

It is represented, on the other hand, that the entire Cuban people, 
without respect to age, rank, color, or condition, are for independence, 
urged thereto by a long-continued and unexampled oppression ; that 
they are fully determined to sacrifice their lives rather than live under 
the tyranny of Spain ; and that, should the war be prolonged, the do- 
minion of Spain must cease, or the entire property of the island be 
destroyed. 

The President has informed Congress that, in order to put a stop to 
bloodshed in Cuba, he had proposed the good offices of this government 
to bring the contest to a termination ; but that the offer was withdrawn, 
because Spain would not agree to any basis that he believed could be 
accepted by Cuba. (Message, 1869, p. 8.) 

It is apparent, therefore, that a contest so barbarous in itself, already 
so long in duration, and imperiling our national interests in so many 
ways, is not likely to be terminated by the voluntary act of Spain, by 
Cuba, or by the friendly intervention of the United States. Looking, 
therefore, to continued force alone for a solution of the war, it becomes 
us to inquire — 

WHAT IS THE POWER OF SPAIN IN CUBA J 

This pregnant question has already challenged the attention of the 
administration. The Assistant Secretary of State informed the consul 
general at Havana that they had been informed from Madrid that meas- 
ures had already been taken to disarm the volunteers: that Genera] de 
Rodas had engaged, at all hazards, to stop the scandalous execution of 
captives and other barbarous cruelties; but they received, at the same 
time, information from Cuba that Valmaseda, the atrocious perpetrator 
of the worst of the cruelties, had received promotion for his Ben ices 
from the government of Spain. The administration is also informed 
from Madrid that the government will declare the immediate abolition 
of slavery ; while the general tenor of information from Cuba is the 
other way, and that it was of great importance that the government of 



16 CUBA. 

the United States should know how far the news from Madrid can be 
depended on. (Page 146.) 

The American consul general at Havana, October 21, 1869, answers 
that inquiry. The disarmament of the volunteers, he says, whatever 
may be the desire of Spain, is, at present, impracticable ; and there are 
many reasons for the belief that no time will arrive, while Cuba is con- 
nected with Spain, when such a measure will be practicable. The organ- 
ization of volunteers appears now to be a permanent power in the island. 
It was owing to its presence in the early part of 1869, and after, that the 
island had been saved to the mother country. It now numbers upward 
of forty thousand men, well organized, armed, and equipped, and is con- 
siderably accustomed to the exercise of arms. It holds all the ports and 
towns. The re-enforcements sent from Spain were made, in great part, 
by loans and contributious of the volunteers. He does not doubt the 
good intentions of General de Eodas; but the circumstances with which 
he has to deal are stronger than his power to overcome tliein. (Pages 
147 and 148.) The cessation of hostilities, he says, looking to any other 
end than the submission of the insurgents, would be scouted. And as 
to the immediate abolition of slavery, he does not find any expression of 
belief in official quarters that it would be practicable. (Page 148.) 

The consul at Matanzas informed this government, June 19, 1869, that 
the island was in complete anarchy. The Catalan volunteers do not 
allow Spanish rulers to administer justice. The governor of Matanzas 
informed him, when applied to for aid in the case of Speakman, that he 
was without power, and had been compelled to seek his own safety by 
appeasing the wrath of the volunteers, and that his commanding officer 
was then a fugitive on board a Spanish man-of-war. (Pages 97 and 98.) 

Admiral Hoff, sent by the President to investigate the cases of Speak- 
man and TVyeth, reported to the government that these American 
citizens were cruelly murdered, owiug entirely to the weakness of the 
Spanish officials in yielding to the demands of the Catalan volunteers, 
and in misconstruing, or acting upon, the cruel decree of the 24th of 
March, 1869. In this view, the President concurred. 

The American consul at Santiago de Cuba says he has been informed by 
the officers of the Spanish government that, owing to the active measures 
which he (the consul) had taken in behalf of his countrymen, and to pre- 
vent their making any declaration, it is their determination, in future, 
to shoot all American prisoners immediately on the spot. (Page 102.) 

" "While I am willing to admit," says the American consul at Matanzas, 
February 7, 1870, "that the Americans are as well protected as any- 
other class of residents, still, in a state of affairs bordering on anarchy, 
there can be little safety or security of any kind." (Ex. Doc. 140, p. 2.) 

The Secretary of State says to the American minister at Madrid, Sep- 
tember 1, 1869, "Anarchy prevails over much of the island. Murders 
of American citizens are committed by volunteers, and confiscation of 
their property is attempted by Spanish authorities." 

The American minister says to the Spanish minister of state, " The 
unprovoked injuries to American citizens become more and more fre- 
quent and fatal within the Spanish lines as the contest is prolonged." 
(Sickles to Bercerra, p. 34.) 

" It is impracticable to ascertain the will of the Cubans by a vote," says 
the Secretary of State to the American minister at Madrid, August 16, 
1869, " because of the disorganization of society ; the terrorism that 
prevails, and the violence and insubordination of the volunteers." 
(Page 25.) 

" Spain desires to terminate civil war," says Mr. Sickles to Mr. Pish, 
i{ and will agree to armistice, if necessary to peace; but the measure must 



CUBA. 1 7 

be left to the discretion of the Captain General" (Page 41.) That is to 
say, it must be with the consent of the volunteers. 

"•It is notorious," says the American minister to Mr. Bercerra. "that 
these irregular troops have sometimes set at defiance the authority of 
their government, and the orders of their superior officers, when the 
measures of government have tailed to satisfy their vindictive demands." 
(Sickles to Bercerra, p. 34, 3d September, 1S(>9.) 

The Secretary of State says to the American minister at Madrid, 
July 29, 1869, "We want to arrest the destruction of life and property, 
and to stop the outrages and annoyances to our citizens." (Page 31.) 
"The Spanish authorities in Cuba," he says again, July 29,"*' ARE 

IMPOTENT FOR PROTECTION OF THE LIVES OP OUR CITIZENS." (Page 
18.) 

THE VOLUNTEERS. 

The Spanish volunteers, the authors of the atrocities of the war, who 
thus appear to be masters of the island, number forty thousand men. 
The Spanish troops are inferior in number, and generally fraternize with 
them. The volunteers are supported in their policy by national clubs and 
committees, representing Spaniards of wealth and influence, and to these 
it is now proposed to add a volunteer reserve corps, composed of persons 
not hitherto enrolled in military organizations. (Page 143.) Holding 
the balance of power, this force is absolute in Cuba. The policy of the 
government at Madrid must conform to its views. If the volunteers 
strike for independence, the authority of Spain will be destroyed. 
They compelled the resignation of Captain General Dulce, because he 
was too lenient in the conduct of the war. They boldly threaten the 
removal of General De Eodas if he fails to satisfy their demands. They 
secured the promotion of Valmaseda at the moment when our govern 
ment was receiving assurances from Spain that the cruelties to which 
he owed his advancement should be suppressed. They disregard all 
laws and all authority which is not in accord with their sanguinary; 
purposes. Few or none are natives of Cuba. They swarm from every 
part of Spain in search of wealth. Xone remain in the land they plunder. 
to live among the people they have wronged. Small fortunes generally 
satisfy their desires, but they often accumulate great wealth, according 
to their aspirations and capacity. They are unaccompanied by families, 
unrestrained by social ties, and represent the most adventurous classes 
of Spain. 

A late distinguished diplomatic representative of this government, in 
a letter printed in the public journals of this country, over his own signa- 
ture, describes the volunteers, " with some honorable exceptions, adven- 
turers, of whom one-half at least are Spanish convicts and desperadoes." 
And he states further, "that every intelligent man with whom he con- 
versed, Spaniards, volunteers, Cubans, foreigners and Americans, with a 
solitary exception, freely proclaimed the fact."* 

They are often without religious culture or education, and of low moral 
character. Many attain wealth, without scruple, by the worst means. 
They monopolize the dignities, offices, and emoluments of the church. 
They control all commercial employments and all the advantages of 
trade. They usurp the patronage of every grocery, tavern, and office in 
the interior of the island. They occupy, to the last man. every appoint- 
ment and post of civil or military administration. They are the proteges 
and protectors of tyranny, monopoly, slavery, and the slave trade, and 
implacable enemies of Cubans, Americans, and other foreigners who 

*N. Y. Tribune, .March ir>, 1870, letter of General James Watson Webb. 
H. Rep. 80 2. 



18 CUBA. 

are of necessity hostile to tyranny, monopoly, slavery, and the slave 
trade. They have little taste for mechanical science, and less for meth- 
odical industry. Engineers and mechanics are generally Cubans or for- 
eigners. The Spaniards are advocates of license and enemies of law. 
The Cubans, and those who sympathize with them, are advocates of law 
and enemies of license. They are owners of land, but they share no gov- 
ernment employment; none of the dignities, offices, or emoluments of the 
church; none of the advantages of trade or commerce; and none of the 
immunities which elsewhere attach to the cultivation of the soil. The 
culture of wheat, which grows luxuriantly, is restricted. Breadstuffs 
from the United States, and other products, are excluded or burdened 
with heavy duties for the benefit of Spanish producers. 

The Spanish volunteers support themselves in Cuba, their families and 
friends in Spain, and amass large fortunes besides. Nothing attaches 
them to Cuba; nothing weans them from their native land. The most 
wealthy send back even the annual increase of their capital, and at the 
close of their American ventures they take everything to Spain, leaving 
nothing to the island they abandon but a numerous progeny of mixed 
blood, which is generally sold to slavery. And this has been the history 
of Spanish colonization in America for three centuries, and in Europe 
since colonies were recognized as an element of civilization. 

Coming from among the most adventurous classes of Spain, the Catalan 
volunteers return to their native land laden with ill-gotten wealth, im- 
proved by an imperfect education picked up in an average residence of 
seven or eight years ; and emboldened by unrestrained exercise of political 
power, they fight at home against liberty and equality, and for the suprem- 
acy of intolerance in religion, corruption in administration, monopoly in 
trade, tyranny in the state, and the perpetual servitude and slavery of 
the Spanish people. The power of Spain in Cuba is mainly in the hands 
of those men. Wanderers from Spain, commoraut only in Cuba, inclif- 
erent to the interests of the island, and regardless of the rights of its 
people — no principle and no power imposes upon them restraint. 

Our consular officers in Cuba are commercial agents only, without 
diplomatic powers or authority. We cannot of right insist upon the rec- 
ognition of our political interests by the government of the island. Our 
diplomatic relations are with Spain, not with Cuba. Our inquiries and 
protests must be communicated to Madrid, reported to Cuba, returned to 
Spain, and transmitted again to the United States — a circuit of many 
thousand miles and wasting months of time — before either party can 
appreciate or comprehend the views of the other; and then the circuit 
is to be repeated, it may be, many times before a conclusion is reached, 
or action even recommended. And what is still worse, our success in 
gaining the favor of the Spanish government may cause the defeat of 
our rights in Cuba, The government of Spain is " impotent for protection 
of the lives of our citizens," says the Secretary of State. 

The moderation of the home government, and the sympathy of Amer- 
icans for Cuba, which ought to modify their rapacity'and cruelty, infu- 
riates the volunteers. Who can wonder that Cubans revolt against such 
rulers, and fight against such injustice % How long are we required to 
shut our eyes to facts, which are patent to all the world, and endure in- 
dignities never before practiced upon any nation % 

These grave events, covering a period of nearly two years, show an 
established condition of affairs, injuriously affecting in every way the 
rights, the interests, and the honor of the American government. That 
condition is described by Spanish officials and American representatives 



CUBA. 19 

as " auarchy." It is not war merely, but the protraction of hostilities by 
ferocious men, without the restraints of the laws of war or the authority 
of government. It is barbarous and bloody internecine war. 

It is unnecessary to assume that this disregard of authority and 
decency is in accordance with the wishes of the present government of 
Spain, or that it makes professions of regard for the rights of the United 
States at Madrid which it does not intend to observe in Cuba. On the 
contrary, the character of its military forces in Cuba, the official declar- 
ations of the officers of the United States and of Spain, and the record 
of current events from the beginning of the war, prove conclusively that 
the government of Spain in Cuba is unable to conquer the people of 
Cuba, to suppress the rebellion, to enforce its authority, to secure the 
observance of its orders by the Spaniards even, to support its own 
officers, to protect the rights of foreign nations, or to punish crimes 
which the civilized world must condemn. 

The character thus given to the volunteers is that of the organization 
to which they belong rather than of the individuals which compose it. 
Without doubt, the same men, attached to the island, identified with 
its interests, and recognizing themselves as a part of its people, sub 
ject to the same destiny, would become estimable citizens, contributing 
their share to the prosperity and honor of the country. 

The existing condition of things is the result of the system of colonial 
despotism which has been maintained by Spain for hundreds of years in 
all the colonies which it has possessed. Her colonial policy has been more 
unjust to her subjects thau any other system of colonial government 
that history records ; and it is owing to this fact that every American 
colony except Cuba and Porto Eico has resisted its rule and overthrown 
its power ; and tbese will soon be numbered with other colonies that 
have achieved independence of the Spanish Crown. Her rule has been 
alike destructive of the interests of her subjects and the peace of the 
home government. Disorder, anarchy, and revolution in Spain have 
kept pace with the tyranny which she has practiced upon her colonies. 
This is the natural result other system of government and the distance 
which separates them from the mother country. The inevitable 
effect of such separation and such tyranny is well described by Mr. 
Burke in bis remarks upon the abuse of power in remote colonies : 

It is difficult for the most wise and upright government to correct the abuses of 
remote delegated power, productive of unmeasured wealth, and protected by the bold- 
ness and strength of the same ill-got riches. These abuses, full of their own wild, 
native vigor, will grow and flourish under mere neglect, lint where the supreme 
authority, not content with winking at the rapacity of its inferior instruments, is so 
shameless and corrupt as openly to give bounties and premiums tor disobedience \<< its 
laws; when it will not trust to the activity of avarice in the pursuit of its own gains; 
when it secures public robbery by all the careful jealousy and attention with which it 
oughl to protect property" from such violence; the commonwealth then is become 
totally perverted from its purposes — neither God nor man will long endure it. In that 
case there is an unnatural infection, a pestilential taint, fermenting in tin' constitution 
of society, which fever and convulsions of sonic kind or other must throw oil: or in 
which the vital powers, worsted in an unequal straggle, an- poshed back upon them- 
selves, and. by a reversal of their whole functions, fester to gangrene, to death ; and. 
instead of what was but just now the delight and boast of creation, there will b< 
out, in the face of the sun, a bloated, putrid, noisome carcass, full of Stench and poison. 
an orlense, a horror — a lesson to the world. 

WHAT IS THE DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES' 

Clearly it is to recognize the actual condition of affairs, and adopt 



20 CUBA. 

such measures as are prescribed by the law of nations for the protection 
of our rights, until peaceful, permanent government can be established. 
It is no longer a "civil commotion," as it has been hitherto regarded by 
the United States; nor a mere "domestic question," as it is represented 
by the Spanish government. It is protracted and atrocious civil war. 

A civil commotion is directed against individuals or against civil 
magistrates. It may reach the standard of sedition or insurrection in 
which a sovereign may be disobeyed; but it is still a state crime, to be 
suppressed and punished by state authority, without intervention and 
without affecting the rights of foreign governments. A civil war^ on 
the contrary, is a contest of arms between a part of the citizens on one 
side, and the sovereign or those who obey him on the other ; in regard 
to which the action of foreign governments may become absolutely 
necessary. "It is sufficient," Yattel says, "that the malcontents have 
some reason to take up arms, in order that the disturbance should be 
called civil war, and not rebellion:' (Vattel, liv. 3, ch. 18, §§ 290-295.) 

The people of Cuba present the best reasons for the contest they wage. 
It has every claim to the sympathy and support of the friends of liberty, 
equality, and justice. It is a race struggling for independence; an en- 
slaved people contending for liberty; a nation fighting for national ex- 
istence. The contest in which they are engaged has all the attributes 
of barbarous and bloody civil war, aggravated by the disorders and 
crimes of anarchy. Our first duty is to treat it as war, and, in accord- 
ance with the law of nations, to declare and maintain, in regard to the 
parties engaged therein, a strict and impartial neutrality. 

"A civil warf Yattel says, "is when a party arises in a state which no 
longer obeys the sovereign, and is sufficiently strong to make head 
against him, or when, in a republic, the nation is divided into two oppo- 
site factions, and both sides take up arms." 

" Civil war breaks the bonds of society and of the government; it gives 
rise in a nation to two independent parties, who acknowledge no common 
judge. They are in the position of two nations who engage in disputes, 
and, not being able to reconcile them, have recourse to arms. The com- 
mon laws of war are, in civil wars, to be observed on both sides. The same 
reasons which make them obligatory between foreign states render them 
more necessary in the unhappy circumstances where two exasperated 
parties are destroying their common country." (Yattel, liv. 3, ch. IS, §§ 
290-295.) 

When a nation becomes divided into two parties absolutely independ- 
ent, and no longer acknowledge a superior, the state is dissolved, and 
the war betwixt the two parties, in every respect, is the same as that of 
a public war between two different nations. The obligation of observ- 
ing the common law of war is, therefore, absolutely indispensable to both 
parties, and the same which the law of nature obliges all nations to ob- 
serve between state and state. (Yattel, Droit des Gens., liv. 3, ch. 18, 
§§ 290-295.) 

"When a part of a state takes up arms against the government, if it 
is sufficiently strong to resist its action, and to constitute two parties of 
equally balanced forces, the existence of civil war is thenceforward de- 
termined. If the conspirators against the government have not the 
means of assuming this position their movement does not pass beyond a 
rebellion. A true civil war breaks the bonds of society by dividing it in 
fact into two independent societies; it is for this consideration that we 
treat of it in international law; since each party forms, as it w^ere, a 
separate nation, both should be regarded as subject to the laws of war. 
This subjection to the law of nations is the more necessary in civil wars, 



CUBA 21 

since these, by nourishing more hatred and resentments titan foreign wars, 
require more the corrective of the hue <>/ nations in order to moderate their 
ravages." (Biquelme, Elementos de Derecho Publico, cap. 11. tomo 1, 
p. 172.) 

"When a faction is formed in a state, which takes up arms against 
the sovereign, in order to wrest from him the supreme power, or impose 
conditions on him; or when a republic is divided into two parties which 
mutually treat each other as enemies, this war is called civil Avar. Civil 
wars frequently commence by popular tumults, which in nowise concern 
foreign nations ; but when one faction or party obtains dominion over 
an extensive territory, gives laws to it, establishes a government in it. 
administers justice, and, in a word, exercises acts of sovereignty — it is a 
person, in thelaw of nations ; and however so much one of the two parties 
gives to the other the title of rebel or tyrant, the foreign powers which 
desire to maintain their neutrality ought to consider both as two states. 
independent as respects one another and other states, who recognize no 
judge of their differences." (Bello, Principios de Derecho International, 
cap; 10, p. 267.) 

M. Bhmtschli, whom Laboulaye places in the first rank of jurists and 
publicists, and styles "the illustrious professor of Heidelberg," in one of 
the most recent and learned of the works on international law, is more 
emphatic as to the duty of governments to recognize contending factions 
as belligerents. 

In his code of international law, in defining the character of war and 
the principles of neutrality, he says : " War is an armed contest between 
different states upon a question of public right." They recognize the 
quality of belligerents in armed forces, who, not having been recognized 
by any state, already existing, as having the right to contend in anus. 
have secured to themselves a military organization, and eombat in good 
faith — in the place of, and as, a state — for a principle of public right." 
(Bhmtschli, p. 270,271.) 

•'There is an exception," he continues, "to the rule that wars can 
take place only between States. When a political party seeks the 
realization of certain public objects, and organizes itself as a state, it 
becomes in a certain measure the state itself. The laws of humanity 
demand that the quality of belligerents should he accorded to th.it 
party ; and its people should not be considered a mass of criminals. A 
party that is sufficiently strong to create a power analogous to that of a 
state, which offers, by its military organization, sufficient guarantees of 
order, and gives evidence by its acts of its intention to become a state. 
that party has a natural right to demand for its army the same treat- 
ment that is accorded to a state already in existence. The sacrifices of 
war are, in that way, diminished, not only for the new parly, but tor all 
its adversaries. li\ on the contrary, the volunteers of the new party are 
pursued as criminals the contest becomes more savage: ami neither of 
the adversaries will allow itself to he surpassed by the oilier in the bar- 
barism of its acts or the cruelly of its reprisals. Under this head are 
ranged the expeditions undertaken by certain forces called Corps Franc. 
or free corps. When these corps are regularh organized ami respect 
the lawsof war, they ought to he considered as belligerents." Bluntschli, 
p. 271.) 

M. Phillimore, in his work on international law. which i> oi the highest 
authority, says: •• There is no proposition of law upon which there exists 
a more universal agreement of all jurists than that t he virt ual and defacto 
recognition of a new state (recognizing the commercial flag ami sanc- 
tioning the appointment of consuls to its ports) gives no jusl cause "I 



22 CUBA. 

offense to the old state, inasmuch as it decides nothing concerning the 
asserted rights of the latter." He makes a distinction between the 
"virtual" recognition of a new state by admitting its commercial flag 
and the appointment of consuls, and the formal recognition by sending 
embassadors and entering into treaties with the new state by foreign 
powers, which should not be done until after " a practical cessation of 
hostilities," though it does not demand a "perfect and undisturbed 
internal tranquillity" within its borders. This would, in fact, be an 
admission of the competency of the new powers to negotiate and con- 
tract engagements under the law of nations. (Phillimore's Int. Law, 
vol. 2, pp. 17-22.) 

In case of revolution, Wheaton says the civil war does not necessa- 
rily extinguish the existence of the sovereign or parent state, but that 
ki until the revolution is consummated, while the civil war involving a 
contest for the government continues, other states may remain indiffer- 
ent spectators of the controversy, still continuing to treat the ancient 
government as sovereign, and the government de facto as a society en- 
titled to the rights of war against its enemies, or may espouse the cause 
of the party which they believe to have justice on its side. In the first 
case, the foreign state fulfills all its obligations under the law of nations, 
and neither party has any right to complain, provided it maintains an 
impartial neutrality." (Part 1, ch. 2, § G.) 

And, again, he says : " It has already been stated that while the con- 
test for the sovereignty continues and the civil war rages, other nations 
may remain passive, allowing to both contending parties all the rights 
which war gives to public enemies; or may acknowledge the independ- 
ence of the new state, forming with it treaties of amity and commerce, 
or may join in alliance with one party against the other. In the first 
case neither party lias any right to complain, so long as other nations main- 
tain an impartial neutrality and abide the event of the contest." (Whea- 
ton, part 1, ch. 2, § 10.) 

Such are the views of modern jurists. In the late civil war in Amer- 
ica, all the nations in Europe recognized and acted upon this doctrine. 
Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Prussia, Eussia, 
Spain, and Great Britain issued proclamations declaring their neutrality, 
and setting forth regulations for the government of their subjects. Our 
government protested against the manner in which some of their declar- 
ations were made, and against the manner in which they were executed, 
but it never denied the right of any government to declare its neutrality 
in any contest. 

The declarations of Great Britain and Spain were substantially alike. 
That of Great Britain was as follows : 

BY THE QUEEN — A PROCLAMATION, VICTORIA R. 

Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereigns, powers, and 
states; and 

Whereas hostilities have, unhappily, commenced between the govern- 
ment of the United States and certain States styling themselves the 
Confederate States of America ; and 

Whereas we, being at peace with the government of the United States, 
have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial 
neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties, we there- 
fore have thought it fit, by the advice of our privy council, to issue this, 
our royal proclamation, &c. Dated May 13, 1861. 

That of Spain was as follows : 






CUBA. 23 

PROCLAMATION BY THE QtTEEN OF SPAIN. 

Considering: the relations which exist between Spain and the United 
States of America, and the expediency of not changing the reciprocal 
feelings of friendly understanding on account of the grave events which 
have happened in that republic, J have resolved to maintain the strict 
neutrality in the struggle engaged in between all the federal States of the 
Union and the Confederate States of the South; and, in order to avoid the 
losses which our subjects might suffer, both in shipping and commerce, 
for want of definite rules to which their conduct might eon form, in ac- 
cordance with my council of ministers, I decree as follows: (And then 
the regulations which govern neutral nations are given as in the British 
proclamation.) Dated June 17, 1861. 

We protested against the manner in which the British proclamation 
was issued, and the faithless manner in which it was executed : but we 
made no protest against that of Spain, whose declaration was identical 
with that of England, except that it repeated the word •• belligerents," 
which was not used in the British proclamation. On the coin ran', we 
accorded to the Spanish government our thanks for its prompt and 
friendly action. 

Mr. Schurz, American minister at Madrid, writes to Mr. Seward, 
July 15, 1801, as follows: "Senor Calderon Collantes then asked me 
whether the declaration of neutrality on the part of Spain, in regard to 
our domestic troubles, was satisfactory to my government T I replied 
"that, as to the declaration of neutrality on the part of Spain. 1 had 
received no expression of opinion from my government; and that I 
thought it would be considered satisfactory." 

Mr. Schurz writes to the Spanish minister of state, Senor Calderon 
Collantes, July 31, 1861, as follows: "Sir: Yesterday I received a dis- 
patch from the Secretary of State of the United States, informing me 
that the President has read, with the greatest satisfaction, the proclamation 
of her Catholic Majesty, concerning the unfortunate troubles that have 
arisen in the United States; and it affords me the sincerest pleasure to 
express to your excellency the high sense which the President enter- 
tains of her Majesty's prompt decision and friendly action wpon tit is occa- 
sion. v 

A measure that is right in itself cannot be made wrong, because it is 
in accord with the practice of all civilized nations; nor can the action of 
this government in defense of itsrights against the policy of Spain in Cuba 
be less defensible, because it follows literally and exactly the precedent 
of Spain in its action with regard to the civil war in this country. All 
nations have been notified that we should follow the examples set by 
other governments in their conduct tons, when other methods of redress 
of wrongs were closed against us. The President, in his Inaugural Ad- 
dress, made that declaration. " I would respect the rights of all nations." 
he said, ''demanding equal respect for OUT own. If others depart from 
this rule in their dealings with us. we may be compelled to follow their 
precedent." (Inaugural Address. 1th March, 1869.) 

What objection can Spain make to a proclamation of neutrality in the 
case of Cuba, identical with her own ••prompt decision and friendly ac- 
tion" in the ease of the United States? What objection can the Euro- 
pean nations, who instantly proclaimed their neutrality in the civil war 
in this country, urge against the neutrality of the United States in tin- 
war between Spain and Cuba, after the unparalleled atrocities of twenty- 
one months and the brutal murderof scores of American citizeiisand re- 
peated insults to our consular and commercial agents I 



24 CUBA. 

Great Britain declared her purpose in regard to the American rebel- 
lion in the House of Commons the 6th of May, 1861 — twenty-three days 
after the attack on Fort Sumter, and before a single life had been sacri- 
ficed, or a drop of blood had been shed, except in the conflict between 
soldiers and citizens in Baltimore, the 19th of April, 1861. Spain issued 
her proclamation of neutrality describing the contestants as belliger- 
ents, the 17th of June — sixty-five days after the fall of Fort Sumter, 
and before a single life had been sacrificed, except at Baltimore. 

What objection can Spain make to a declaration of neutrality on the 
part of the United States in the Cuban contest, after a bloody and 
brutal civil war of nearly two years ? 

The limitations and conditions under which neutrality should be de- 
clared are sternly and strongly stated by Mr. Adams in his correspond- 
ence with Lord John Bussell upon the Alabama claims. To every po- 
sition assumed by him our assent is cheerfully conceded. 

" Whenever an insurrection against the established government of a 
country takes place, the duty of governments under obligations to 
maintain peace and friendship with it appears to be, at first, to abstain 
carefully from any step that may have the smallest influence in affecting 
the result. Whenever facts occur of which it is necessary to take no- 
tice, either because they involve the necessity of protecting personal 
interests at home or avoiding an implication in the struggle, then it ap- 
pears to be just and right to provide for the emergency by specific 
measures, precisely to the extent that may be required, but no further. 
It is, then, facts alone, and not appearances or presumptions, that justify 
action. But even these are not to be dealt with further than the occa- 
sion demands ; a rigid neutrality in whatever may be done is, of course, 
understood. If, after the lapse of a reasonable period, there be little 
prospect of a termination of the struggle, especially if this be carried 
on upon the ocean, a recognition of the parties as belligerents appears 
to be justifiable; and at that time, so far as I can ascertain, such a step 
has never in fact heen objected to. v 

It is impossible to affirm that there is the slightest departure by this 
government from the stern rules laid down by Mr. Adams, either in its 
past action on the Cuban question or in the course now proposed. So 
far from taking any step that could affect disadvantageously the cause 
of Spain, we have rendered her important assistance in the suppression 
of the Cuban rebellion. Who can question, in the face of the record 
presented to this House by the President, that "facts" have occurred 
which not only involve, but demand, the protection of our personal inter- 
ests at home ? Who can deny, in the face of the constant protests of the 
Secretary of State against the outrages upon the rights and persons of 
American citizens that it has been difficult for us to avoid " an implica- 
tion" in the Cuban struggle ? The record would justify the government 
in recognizing the independence of Cuba or a declaration of war ; but we 
propose only " to provide for the emergency by specific measures, precisely 
to the extent required, but no further." " It is," then, "facts alone, and not 
appearances or presumptions, that justify (our) action:" and this not only 
"after the lapse of a reasonable period," but after a brutal internecine 
war of twenty-one months ; after nearly two hundred armed conflicts ; 
after the sacrifice of thousands of lives; and when there is not only 
"little " but no " prospect of a termination of the struggle." And it is to 
be noticed, especially, that the resolutions proposed follow the specifica- 
tions of Mr. Adams in another essential point — that it contemplates a 
continuance of the struggle on the land, and not " upon the ocean." It 
is perfectly within the power of the government to maintain the neu- 



CUBA. 25 

trality of the United States within this limit, under the resolutions for 
which we ask the approval of the House. 

But, while the resolutions are thus within the almost bloodless schedule 
of "facts" prescribed by Mr. Adams, it is gratifying to know that they 
approach at least the elevated standard of action which this government 
has hitherto adopted whenever and wherever the cause of liberty has 
been involved. 

The principles which have governed the American people in cases of 
this character are stated by Mr. Webster in his letter, as Secretary of 
State, to the representative of the empire of Austria, at Washington, 
December 21, 1850. i$o state paper was ever more enthusiastically or 
unanimously approved by the American people than the " Hiilseinanu 
letter." 

It carries us back to the doctriues of the founders of our government. 
It recalls the declaration of Phillimore, the ablest of English commen- 
tators on international law, that the right of a government to protect 
its citizens wherever commorant, and the right of one government to 
recognize the existence of another, constitute the foundation of the law 
of nations. It is the American protest against the doctrines of the 
Holy Alliance, as expressed in the Layback Circular, that new states 
could only be tolerated when recognized by existing governments. Had 
Mr. Webster lived only to make this declaration, his life would have 
been a victory. 

"It is the right of every independent state," said Mr. Webster, "to 
enter into friendly relations with every other independent state. Of 
course questions of prudence naturally arise in reference to new states, 
brought by successful revolution into the family of nations: but it is 
not to be required of neutral powers that they should await the recog- 
nition of the new government by the present state. No principle of public 
law has been more frequently acted upon within the la st thirty years, by the 
great powers of the world, than this. Within that period, eight < >r ten new 
States have established independent governments, within the limits of 
the colonial dominion of Spain, on this continent; and in Europe the 
same thing has been done by Belgium and Greece. The existence of 
all these governments was recognized by some of the leading powers of 
Europe, as well as by the United States, before it was acknowledged by 
the states from which they had separated themselves. If, therefore, 
the United States had gone so far as to acknowledge the independence 
of Hungary, although, as the result has proved, it would have been a 
precipitate step, and one from which no benefit would have resulted to 
either party, it would not, nevertheless, have been an act against the 
law of nations, provided they took no part in her contest with Austria." 
(Works of Daniel Webster, vol. »i, pp. 408,499.) 

These are indisputable American doctrines: bul we do not go so far 
as to ask the House to apply them in the case of Cuba. 

Mr. Canning said upon the same subject in the House of Commons, 
February!, 1825, that " as to the propriety of admitting states which had 
successfully shaken off their dependence on the mother country to the 
rights of nations, there could be no dispute. There were two ways of 
proceeding: were the case more questionable, recklessly and with a 
hurried course to the object, which might soon he reached, or almost as 
soonlost; or by another course, so strictly guarded thai no principle was 
violated and no offense given to other powers." (Hansard's Par. Deb., 
2d series, vol. xii, p. 78.) 

"It is not by formal stipulations or solemn declarations," said Sir 
James Mackintosh, in speaking of the proposed acknowledgment of the 



26 CUBA. 

Spanish.- American colonies by Great Britain, "that we are to recognize 
the American States, but by measures of practical policy, the most con- 
spicuous part of which is the act of sending - or receiving diplomatic 
agents. It implies no guarantee, no alliance, no aid, no approbation of 
the successful revolt, no intimation of an opinion concerning the justice 
or injustice of the means by which it has been accomplished. The tacit 
recognition of a new state, not being a judgment of the new govern- 
ment, or against the old, is not a deviation from a perfect neutrality, or 
a just cause of offense to the dispossessed ruler." (Mackintosh's Works 
p. 749.) 

But we do not ask the assent of the House to such self-evident and 
patriotic doctrines. We ask only, that in the armed contest in Cuba, 
the existence of which it would be a crime to question, the neutrality of 
the United States shall be proclaimed and enforced. We ask for Cuba 
nothing but justice — that justice which, it is said, is the chief concern 
of mankind. 

WHAT IS NEUTRALITY? 

There is no word in the Greek or Latin tongue that is the exact equiv- 
alent to the term neutral, or neutrality. The reason of this defect in the 
ancient languages, says Wheaton, is evident. The rules of war, followed 
by the most civilized nations of antiquity, did not permit one nation to 
enjoy peace while neighboring states were engaged in war. The people 
were allies or enemies. That appears now to be the doctrine of Spain. 

The development of the laws of neutrals is one of the most fruitful 
and useful conquests of modern civilization. The neutral states contri- 
bute, in effect, to localize the war, seeking, as far as possible, to extend 
and protect the interests of peace. (Bluntsehli, p. 375.) 

There are degrees of neutrality. Strict neutrality implies that a state- 
stands entirely aloof from the operations of war, giving no assistance or 
countenance to either belligerent. 

Impartial neutrality is where both belligerents have equal liberty to 
pursue operations of war, or to purchase military stores within the neu- 
tral's territory. Neutrals must be impartial ; and powers, not parties to 
the war, must treat both belligerents alike as friends. ( Woolsey's Inter 
national Law, p. 351.) 

The essence of neutrality, says Hautefeuille, is — 

1. The most perfect impartiality. 

2. Abstaining absolutely from all hostile acts. (Hautefeuille, vol. I, 
p. 370.) 

General neutrality, says Hiibner, is the condition of a nation that, 
without allying itself to any of the belligerent parties in a war, is ready 
to extend to any and all of them the aid which is due from one state to 
another. The neutral is the common friend of both parties, and, conse- 
quently, is not at liberty to favor one party to the detriment of the 
other. (Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 697.) 

Bynkershoek states it to be the duty of neutrals "to be in every way 
careful not to interfere in the war, and to do equal and exact justice to 
both parties." 

Neutrality consists in entire inaction relative to the war ; and in exact 
and perfect impartiality manifested by acts in regard to the belligerents, 
so far as that impartiality has relation to the war and to the means di- 
rect and immediate of prosecuting it. This definition by Hiibner is cited 
with warm approval by Hautefeuille. (Vol. 1, p. 363.) Wheaton speaks 
of Hiibner, in the Supreme Court of the United States, as " the great 
champion of the rights of neutral states." 



CUBA. 2 7 

Since the time of Grotius, the law of Europe has become settled that 
neutrals have the right to trade with belligerents, except in those eases 
in which neutral commerce would affect the issue of a war by interfering 
so as to assist either party in the contest. It is now provided in most 
treaties of commerce that either party shall have full liberty to trade 
with the enemies of the other during war. (Manning's Laws of Xations, 
p. 192.) 

With the exception of the treaties of Whitehall, in 1GS9, between 
Great Britain and Holland, against France, and that of the European 
powers against France, in 1793, there has been no interruption of the 
general rule that neutrals have the full right of trading with belligerents 
as in time of peace, except in those cases when such commerce would 
interfere with belligerent rights. There is nothing in commerce that can 
be said to affect, directly, the issue of a war, and with which, therefore, 
belligerents have a right to interfere. (Manning's Laws of Nations, pp. 
192-194.) 

During the Greek revolution the same course was pursued by the 
British government. To a complaint of the Porte against allowing the 
Greeks belligerent rights, in which it was said that " to subjects in rebel- 
lion no national character belonged,' 1 Mr. Canning replied that " the char- 
acter of belligerency was not so much a principle as a fact ; that a certain 
degree of force and consistency acquired by a mass of population engaged 
in war entitled that population to be treated as a belligerent, and even 
when this title was questionable, rendered it the interest well understood 
of all civilized nations so to treat them. Their cruisers must be treated 
as belligerents or dealt with as pirates." (Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 43.) 

When Texas declared herself independent of Mexico, March, 1836, to 
a remonstrance that the Texas flag was admitted to the port of New 
York, it was answered that in previous civil wars between Spain and her 
eolonies "it had never been held necessary, as a preliminary to the ex- 
tension of the rights of hospitality to either party, that the chances of 
war should be balanced and the probability of eventual success deter- 
mined. For this purpose it had been deemed sufficient that the party 
had actually declared its independence, and was at the time maintaining 
it. v (Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, to Mexican minister, September 
20, 1836.) 

Mr. Webster said, in answer to the complaint of Mexico, that citizens 
of the United States had been engaged in a coinmeree by which Texas, 
an enemy of Mexico, had been supplied with arms and munitions of 
war : "It was not the practice of nations to undertake to prohibit their 
own subjects, by previous laws, from trafficking in articles contraband 
of war. Such trade is carried on at the risk of those engaged in it, 
under the liabilities and penalties by the law of nations or by particular 
treaties, If it be true, therefore, that citizens of the United States have 
been engaged in a commerce by which Texas, an enemy of Mexico, had 
been supplied with arms and munitions of war, the government of the 
United States, nevertheless, was not bound to prevent it: and could not 
have prevented it without a manifest departure from the principles of 
neutrality, and is in no way answerable for the consequences." (Law- 
rence's Wheaton, p. 813.) 

The treaty with Mexico enumerated articles contraband of war, \c. 
but did not prohibit coinmeree therein. 

Mr. Marcy, in the discussion of the questions involved in the treaty of 
Paris, 1856, makes the following declaration: " Humanity and justice 
demand that the calamities incident to war should be strictly limited to 
the belligerents themselves, and to those who voluntarily lake part with 



28 CUBA. 

tliem ; but neutrals abstaining in good faith from such complicity, ought 
to be left to pursue their ordinary trade with either belligerent, without 
restrictions in respect to the articles entering into it." (Lawrence's 
Wheaton, p. 815.) 

" If the foreign state professes neutrality," says Mr. Wheaton, " it is 
bound to allow impartially to both belligerent parties the free exer- 
cise of those rights which war gives to public enemies against each other, 
such as the right of blockade and of capturing contraband and enemies' 
property." (Wheaton, p. 1, ch. 2, § 6.) 

SPANISH TREATY OF 1795. 

It has been suggested that in the event of war in Cuba certain pro- 
visions of the treaty of 1795 with Spain might cause embarrassment to 
the United States. A brief examination of this subject will dispel such 
fear. Previous to the treaty of 1795 the right of search of vessels on the 
high seas was asserted by the European governments in war and peace. 
The United States constantly and successfully resisted this claim. The 
treaty of 1795 with Spain, was negotiated to secure freedom from the 
right of search, except under limited conditions, to which this govern- 
ment assented. The American minister who negotiated the treaty 
declares in his official communications to the government that the pro- 
visions of the treaty were entirely in the interest of the United States. 
The same treaty had been negotiated with Holland in 17S2, Prussia in 
1785, France in 1788, and Spain in 1795. " The intention of the treaty," 
said the Supreme Court, " was to ingraft into the law of nations a great 
and new principle." The form of passports required had been annexed 
to all these treaties except that of Spain. Spain refused to execute the 
treaty of 1819 for nearly two years, until the President recommended a 
declaration of war if further delay occured. No treaty of commerce 
and navigation has been executed with Spain, and no treaty of limits 
and boundaries except those of 1795 and 1819, from both of which so 
much embarrassment has occurred. By the treaty of 1795, Spain virtually 
surrendered the right of search so long exercised by European nations. 
It was for this reason, probably, that she failed to carry into execution the 
articles of the treaty relating to this subject. It is susceptible of his- 
torical proof that the passports required were prepared and printed with 
the treaty, at the royal printing office in Madrid ; but they were never 
annexed to the treaty in conformity with its express terms. These 
articles were held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be, so 
far as the right of search was concerned, imperfect and inoperative in 
consequence of the omission to annex the form of passport required by 
the treaty. The question arose in the case of the Amiable Isabella. 
(5 Wheaton, page 1.) It was three times argued before the court by the 
ablest counsel of the United States. William Wirt, Attorney General 
of the United States, and Mr. Wheaton represented the government. 
The judgment of the court was given by Judge Story. Six out of the 
seven judges — Chief Justice Marshall, Washington, Livingston, Todd, 
Duval and Story — concurred in the judgment. Judge Johnson of 
Pennsylvania dissented. He saw no reason " for nullifying the opera- 
tion of the seventeenth article," which was the effect of the judgment 
of the court. The decision of the court is in these words : 

Unless this court is prepared to say that all forms and solemnities were useless and 
immaterial; that neither government had a right to insist upon a form after having 
assented to the terms of the article; that a judicial tribunal may disjiense with what 
ts own notions of equity may deem unimportant in a treaty, though the parties have 



CUBA. 29 

chosen to require it, it cannot consider the seventeenth article of this treaty as com- 
plete or operative until the form of the passport is incorporated intuit by the joint act 
of both governments. 

Upon the whole, it is the opinion of the court, in which opinion six: judges agree, 
that the form of the passport not having been annexed to the seventeenth article 01 
the treaty, the immunity, whatever it was, intended by that article never took effect : 
and therefore, in examining and deciding on the case before us, we must be governed 
by the general law of prize. (Page 9.) 

To ingraft into this treaty the principles of the armed neutrality was the object, 
and for this purpose the fifteenth article declares those principles in detail. The six- 
teenth furnishes the exceptions to them ; the seventeenth prescribes the evidence on 
which those privileges shall be conceded ; and the eighteenth, alter regulating the 
conduct of cruisers toward vessels so protected, proceeds to declare that '"the ship, 
when she shall have showed such passport, shall be free and at liberty to pursue her 
"voyage, so as it shall uot be lawful to molest or give her chase in any manner, or 
force her to quit her intended course." It is impossible for language to be stronger. 
(.3 Wheaton, pages 20, 21.) 

A motion for rehearing of the case was overruled without dissent. The 
articles are herewith presented. It is immaterial whether they are re- 
garded as operative or not. The practice of all nations is now the same 
as that guaranteed to the United States by the treaty of 1795. From 
this review of the question the Committee on Foreign Affairs is irresisti- 
bly led to the conclusion that it is the right and duty of the United 
States in regard to the struggle in Cuba — 

1. To recognize the existence of the contest : 

2. To declare and maintain an impartial neutrality : 

3. To give to both parties the same advantages of intercourse and 
trade with the United States : 

4. To invite the President to remonstrate against the barbarous man- 
ner in which the war has been conducted. 

And they therefore recommend the adoption of the accompanying res- 
olutions. 

For the committee : 

N. P. BAXKS, Chairman. 



NOTE TO MAJORITY REPORT. 
Extracts from treaty of 1795. 

Art. 12. The merchant ships of either of the parties which shall he making into a 
port belonging to the enemy of the other party, and concerning whose voyage and the 
species of goods on board her there shall be just grounds of suspicion, shall be obliged 
to exhibit, as well upon the high seas as in the ports and havens, not only her pass- 
ports, but likewise certificates expressly showing that her goods are not of the number 
of those which have been prohibited as contraband. 

Art. IT. To the end that all manner of dissensions and quarrels may be avoided 
and prevented on one side and the other, it is agreed that in ease either of the parties 
hereto should he engaged in a war. the ships anil vessels belonging to the BUDJects or 
people of the other party must lie furnished with sea-letters or passports expressing 
the name, property, and hulk of the ship, as also the name and place of habitation of 
the master or commander of the said ship, that it may appear thereby thai the ship 
really and truly belongs to the subjects of one of the parties, which passport shall lie 
made out and granted according to the form annexed to this treaty. They shall like- 
wise he recalled every year: that is, if the ship happens to return horn. • within a space 
of a year. 

It is likewise agreed that such ships, being laden, are to be provided, not only with 
passports as above mentioned, but also with certificates containing tin- several partic- 
ulars of the cargo, the place whence the ship sailed, thai so it mas' be known whether 
any forbidden or contraband goods be on board the same: which certificates .-hall be 
made out by the officers of the place whence the ship sailed, in the accustomed form. 
And if any one shall think it tit or advisable to express in the said certificates the per- 
son to whom the goods on board belong, he may freely do so; without which requisites 



30 CUBA. 

they may be sent to one of the ports of the other contracting party, and adjudged by 
the competent tribunal, according to what is above set forth, that all the circumstances 
of this omission having been well examined they shall be adjudged to be legal prizes, 
unless they shall give legal satisfaction of their property by testimony entirely equiv- 
alent. 

Art. 18. If the ships of the said subjects, people, or inhabitants of either of the 
parties shall be met with, either sailing along the coasts or on the high seas, by any 
ship of war of the other, or by any privateer, the said ship of war or privateer, for the 
avoiding of any disorder, shall remain oiit of cannon-shot, and may send their boats 
aboard the merchant ship which they shall so meet with, and may enter her to num- 
ber of two or three only, to whom the master or commander of such ship or vessel shall 
exhibit his passports concerning the property of the ship, made out according to the 
form inserted in this present treaty ; and the ship, when she shall have showed such 
passports, shall be free and at liberty to pursue her voyage, so as it shall not be lawful 
to molest or give her chase in any manner, or force her to quit her intended course. 



MINORITY REPORT. 



The undersigned, members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, do 
not concur with a majority of the committee in recommending for the 
approval of the House the joint resolution in relation to the contest 
between the people of Cuba and the government of Spain, but do rec- 
ommend, as a substitute for said proposed joint resolution, the passage 
of the following bill : 

A BILL making- it a misdemeanor to fit out or equip ships of war, with intent that 
they shall be employed in the service of any European prince or state, for the pur- 
pose of subduing- American colonists claiming independence, and providing for the 
forfeiture of such ship or vessel. 

Be it exacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That if any person shall, within the limits of the United States, 
fit out, arm, or equip, or attempt to fit out, arm, or equip, or procure to be fitted out, 
armed, or equipped, or shall knowingly be concerned in the fitting out, arming, or 
equipping, of any ship or vessel, with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed 
iu the service of any European prince or state, for the purpose of subduing American 
colonists claiming independence, or shall issue or deliver a commission within the terri- 
tory of the United States for any ship or vessel, with the intent that she may be em- 
ployed as aforesaid, every person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, 
upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum uot exceeding five thousand dollars, 
and be imprisoned for a period not exceeding two years, nor less than six mouths ; and 
every such ship or vessel, with her tackle, apparel and furniture, together with all 
materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, which may have been procured for the build- 
ing and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited, one-half to the use of the informer, and 
the other half to the United States. 

Sec. 2. And he it farther enacted, That in every case where a ship or vessel shall be 
fitted out, armed, or equipped, or attempted to be fitted out, armed, or equipped, con- 
trary to the provisions of this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United 
States, or such person as he shall have empowered for that purpose, to employ the laud 
or naval forces, or the militia of the United States, or any part thereof, for the purpose 
of taking possession of and detaining any such ship or vessel. 

Sec. 3. And he it further enacted, That the provisions of the act approved April 20, 
1818, entitled "An act in addition to the 'Act for the punishment of certain crimes 
against the United States,' and to repeal the acts therein mentioned," shall be held to 
apply and be in force, as to all attempts of American colonies, or parts thereof, to assert 
their independence ; and the words "colonies, districts, or peoples" in such act shall 
he held to apply to and include all such American colonists claiming independence, as 
described iu the first section of this act. 

The minority of the committee, in making this recommendation, is 
influenced by the conviction that the passage and due enforcement of 
the proposed bill will have the effect of establishing perfect neutrality, 
on the part of this government, between the government of Spain and 
the revolutionary party in Cuba; and that it will have the same effect 
upon any future conflict of a like character in any American possessions 
of a European power, without reference to the questions that would other- 
wise arise as to the extent and character of the insurrection or revolu- 
tion. It is, in fact, an enlargement of the principle known as the 
Monroe doctrine; and without giving any reasonable cause of offense 
to any European nation, is an affirmance of the doctrine, that this 
nation, while it opposes unauthorized interference on the part of its 
citizens with the concerns of other nations or colonics, is decidedly ad- 
verse to the continuance of a colonial system for the government of any 
portion of the American Continent. It also declares that this government 
will, from the beginning, refuse assistance to a European government in 
maintaining its supremacy whenever an attempt is made by an American 



32 CUBA. 

colony to cast it off, nor will it permit its citizens to give such assist- 
ance. In short, the policy suggested will prevent European govern- 
ments from obtaining hereafter in the United States any armaments, or 
munitions of war, for the purpose of suppressing insurrections in 
American colonies, which the law now forbids to be sold to the insur- 
gents themselves, thus putting the parent country and the insurgents 
on terms of precise equality in that respect. 

The neutrality law, so called, passed in 1818, defines the acts which it 
declares to be criminal in the following sections: 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That if any citizen of the United States shall, within the terri- 
tory or jurisdiction thereof, accept and exercise a commission to serve a foreign 
prince, state, colony, district, or people, in war, by land or by sea, agtiust any prince, 
state, colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, the person 
so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be imprisoned 
not exceeding three years. 

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall, within the territory or 
jurisdiction of the United States, enlist or euter himself or hire or retain another per- 
son to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United 
States, with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, 
colony, district, or people, as a soldier, or as a marine or seaman, on board of any ves- 
sel of war, letter-of-marque, or privateer, every person so offending shall be deemed 
guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, 
and be imprisoned not exceeding three years: Provided, That this act shall not be con- 
strued to extend to any subject or citizen of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, 
or people, who shall transiently be within the United States, and shall on board of any 
vessel of war. letter-of-marque, or privateer, which at the time of its arrival within 
the United States was fitted out and equipped as such, enlist or enter himself, or hire 
or retain anotber subject or citizen of the same foreign prince, state, colony, district, 
or people, on board such vessel of war, letter-of-marque, or privateer, if the United 
States shall tben be at peace with such foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people. 

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall, within the limits of the 
United States, fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to be fitted 
out aud armed, or shall knowingly be concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arm- 
ing, of any ship or vessel with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the 
service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colouy, district, or people, to cruise or 
commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or 
state, or of any colouy, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, 
or shall issue or deliver a commission within the territory or jurisdiction of the United 
States, for any ship or vessel, to the intent that she maybe employed as aforesaid, every 
XDerson so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, aud shall be 
fined not more than ten thousand dollars, and imprisoned not more than three years ; and 
every such ship or vessel, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all 
materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, which may have been procured for the build- 
ing and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited ; one-half to the use of the informer, and 

the other half to the use of the United States. 

* * * ****** 

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall, within the territory or ju- 
risdiction of the United States, increase or augment, or procure to be increased or aug- 
mented, or shall knowingly be concerned in increasing or augmenting, the force of any 
ship of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel which, at the time of her arrival within the 
United States, was a ship of war, or cruiser, or armed vessel iu the service of any for- 
eign prince, or state, or of any colony, district, or people, or belonging to the subjects 
or citizens of any such prince, or state, colony, district, or people, the same being at 
war with any foreign prince, or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom 
the United States are at peace, by adding to the number of the guns of such vessel, or 
by changing those on board of her for guns of a larger caliber, or by any addition 
thereto of any equipment solely applicable to war, every person so offending shall be 
guilty of a high misdemeanor, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, and be 
imprisoned not more than one year. 

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall, within the territory or juris- 
diction of the United States, begin or set on foot, or provide, or prepare the means for, 
any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence against the territory 
or dominions of any foreign prince or state, or any colony, district, or people, with 
whom the United States, are [at] peace, every person so offending shall be deemed 
guilty of a high misdemeanor, aud shall be fined not exceeding three thousand dollars, 
and imprisoned not more than three years. 

The friends of the insurgents in Cuba have claimed that the words 



CUBA. 33 

" colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace," 
are broad enough to include these insurgents, and that the fitting out of 
the Spanish gunboats was as much an offense against the law as the 
fitting out of the Hornet. The executive department of the government 
has, however, decided that the Cuban insurgents are not " a colony, dis- 
trict, or pe pie with whom the United States are at peace." It is not 
now necessary, in view of the action we recommend, to impure whether 
this construction of the law is or is not correct, inasmuch as the bill we 
report, if it becomes a law. will give the insurgents all that a construc- 
tion of the neutrality law most favorable to them could give them. We 
have copied these sections of the statute, however, to enable the House 
more readily to see, by a comparison of the law with the bill we propose, 
the full scope of this measure. 

It will be observed that the policy proposed by the minority of the 
committee, in the present and all future cases, waives any question of 
power, character, or prospects of the revolutionary party. It assumes 
the right of American countries to self-government, and declares the 
policy of this government as not inimical to the assertion of that right 
in any case. 

In view of the action we propose, it is unnecessary to consider the 
reasons or the facts which are urged by the majority of the committee 
in support of the resolutions recommended by them. We are con- 
strained, however, to say that the alleged facts, if true, do not, by any 
process of reasoning or logic, lead necessarily to the conclusion reached 
by the majority. They only prove, at the most, that this government 
may declare itself neutral, if it chooses so to do; but they by no means 
confine the legislative department to that particular line of policy. ( '(in- 
gress is the law-making power. It can declare a policy not only for 
this case but for all cases, while the Executive has no choice except to 
do as he has already done, or recognize a state of war as existing. It 
seems to the minority to be at once more manly and more statesman- 
like for Congress, if it is to act at all, to declare some general doctrine 
applicable to all similar contests, and thus, while affirming and giving 
effect to the American doctrine, avoid offense to any European nation 
by declaring its policy in a general law. 

The undersigned woidd further submit that no cause of offense can 
arise from this legislation, as it is but repeating what was supposed to 
be the effect of the act of April 20, 1818, by a large proportion of the 
American people ; and the necessity for this legislation arises from the 
construction given to that act by the Attorney Genera] in the matter of 
the release of the Spanish gunboats. 

The undersigned confess their inability to arrive at the same conclu- 
sions attained by a majority of the committee, as to the condition of the 
insurrection in Cuba. We have seen no evidence that there is a Cuban 
revolutionary government in existence, and exercising permanent control 
over any portion of the island, and we are constrained to believe that 
the constitution, political divisions, and control of the island are mainly 
on paper. The manner of the promulgation of the constitution, the long- 
continued doubts as to its provisions, the absence of elect inns, and the 
uncertainty which hangs over everything connected with the insurrec- 
tion, seem to the undersigned not at all compatible with an actual, 
existing, and established government entitled to any sort of recognition. 
In our opinion, the revolutionary government of Cuba has no existence 
outside of the camps of the "patriot bands? 

It is not pretended that the insurgents control any considerable town 
or city; indeed, the majority -oncede they do not. The only towns 
H. Rep. SO 3 



34 CUBA. 

claimed as within their control are Sibamca, a mere hamlet, and Gkiai- 
maro, an interior village of about five hundred inhabitants, and so far as 
we are advised both of these have been destroyed. (See Doc, pp. 158, 159.) 
It is submitted that a revolution that has not yet acquired a single 
town as its capital, lias not command of a single seaport, and has not 
a vessel afloat, is hardly in condition to claim that it is a "government" 
entitled to a formal declaration of neutrality, which in effect is a recog- 
nition that it is entitled to belligerent rights. This brings us to a con- 
sideration of the probable result of passing the resolutions reported by 
the majority of the committee. 

A declaration of neutrality is a concession of belligerent rights. It 
recognizes a condition of war as existing, and entitles both parties, so far 
as the neutral nation is concerned, to belligerent rights. Such a declara- 
tion would enlarge the rights of Spain as against this country. Spain 
would, after such a recognition, be entitled to all the rights granted in 
the treaty of 1795 — rights which she has already claimed, but abandoned 
after remonstrance by our government. (Message, 18G9, p. 8.) This treaty, 
among other things, concedes the right of search as therein specified and 
limited; and no form of manifest or certificate having been agreed on, it 
would give the right to search for contraband of war, under the law 
of nations, every American vessel found in Cuban waters, or on the high 
seas ; and the carrying of such goods would then become unlawful. That 
this would be an advantage to Spain, and a constant source of em- 
barrassment to our large commerce in the West Indies, is manifest. The 
corresponding advantage to us, or even to the Cuban insurgents, is not 
so clear, while the probability that the exercise of this right would lead 
to complications, difficulties, and perhaps war, would seem too certain, 
in the light of the history of this country and the known character of 
Spain, to need argument. It is not wise to take such action as will lead 
to these complications unless some duty on the part of this government 
requires such action. 

We do not deem it necessary to raise any question as to the right of 
this government to make a general declaration of neutrality. The 
American doctrine on the subject is thus stated by Mr. Adams : 

Whenever an insurrection against an established government of a country takes 
place, the duty of governments, under obligations to maintain peace and friendship 
with it, appears to be, at first, to abstain carefully from any step that may have the 
smallest influence in affecting the result. Whenever facts occur of which it is neces-* 
sary to take notice, either because they involve the necessity of protecting personal 
interests at home, or avoiding an implication in the struggle, then it appears to be just 
and right to provide for the emergency by specific measures, precisely to the extent 
that may be required, but no further. It is, then, facts alone, and not appearances or 
presumptions, that justify action. But even these are not to be dealt with further than 
the occasion demands ; a rigid neutrality in whatever may be done is, of course, under- 
stood. If, after the lapse of a reasonable period, there be little prospect of a termina- 
tion of the struggle, especially if this be carried on upon the ocean, a recognition of 
the parties as belligerents appears to be justifiable ; aud at that time, so far as I can as- 
certain, such a step has never, in fact, been objected to. (Mr. Adams's correspondence 
with Earl Eussell, quoted iu Dana's Wheaton, p. 37, note.) 

Mr. Dana, in his edition of Wheaton's International Law, (page 35, 
note,) says : 

In a contest wholly upon land, a contiguous state may be obliged to make a decis- 
ion, whether or not to regard it as war ; but in practice this has not been done by a 
general and prospective declaration, but by actual treatment of cases as they arise. 

And on the preceding page Mr. Dana says: 

The occasion for the accordance of belligerent rights arises when a civil conflict 
exists within a foreign state. The reason which requires and can alone justify this 
step by the government of another country, is that its own rights and interests are so 
far affected as to require a definition of its own relation to the parties. 



cuba: 35 

It will be observed that all writers leave the question so far an unde- 
termined one, that the point of time when a nation may make a declara- 
tion of neutrality must, after all, be derided by eaeli Tuition for itself. 

Generally, it is the duty of any nation to remain strictly neutral — to 
do nothing which may in the least degree affect the result. 

This lias been done by this government so far as the law permitted, 
the only instance in which the government was not impartial being in 
relation to the gunboats; and its course in respect to the gunboats was 
controlled by the fact that under the law, as interpreted by the Attorney 
General, it had no right to detain them, unless it was prepared to recog- 
nize a state of war as existing in Cuba; and this it was not satisfied it 
ought to do. This defect of the law will be entirely remedied by the 
passage of the bill recommended by the minority. In other respects it 
is submitted that the entire conduct of this government has been neu- 
tral and fair. 

But the right to declare neutrality is one thing; the duty, quite another. 
The right may exist long before there is any duty at all. 

When it becomes our duty to recognize a state of war as existing and 
declare our neutrality, we trust there will be no hesitation, either in this 
or any other case. We ought to discharge our duties "though the 
heavens fall." But when the question is one of right merely, we may 
rightfully, and we ought, to consider the consequences. Xow, surely, the 
only demand that the Cubans can rightfully make upon us is, that we 
shall establish a neutrality in fact; and this is done as effectually by 
the action we propose as by the resolution proposed by the majority. 
The difference is, that the majority propose a declaration of neutrality 
in this struggle ; we propose a declaration that will be sufficient for this 
and all struggles of like character. The majority resolutions seem to 
assume a condition of things in Cuba that requires us to declare our 
neutrality as to that struggle ; we propose to crystallize into a statute 
the American doctrine, that in all struggles of American colonies 
against European domination this government will not stop to inquire 
as to the extent or power of the revolutionary party, but the fact of an 
insurrection against the European power shall of itself entitle that in- 
surrection to consideration, so that it shall be unlawful for an American 
to assist in its suppression. It is a declaration that we will not. even 
as a commercial transaction, sell ships or vessels of war to aid in sup- 
pressing revolts among American colonists, but will, from the beginning 
of such struggle, do nothing for the European government that it is not 
lawful to do for the insurrectionary party. We cannot resist the con- 
clusion that this course is in every regard the best for this country, and 
as favorable to the Cubans as the resolution proposed by the majority, 
while it prevents complications that would be likely to arise under the 
treaty of 1795 and the law of nations by the adoption of the majority 
resolutions, and at the same time settles the future policy of the 
government. 

We have purposely avoided a reference to the reported outrages on 
American citizens in Cuba, because these matters arc as we conceive, 
in nowise involved in the discussion of the present question. It is an 
unfortunate fact that such outrages have occurred, although it is ques- 
tionable to what extent the Spanish government in Cuba is responsible 
for them, as there exists in the island a third power, neither Spanish nor 
Cuban, which dominates the government and controls Hie military forces 
of the island apparently against the will of the constituted authorities. 
This condition of things and these outrages upon American citizensseem 
to call for such action on the part of our government as will prevent such 



36 CUBA 

outrages in the future; but the undersigned are not able to see that a 
declaration of neutrality would have any such effect, or, indeed, tend in 
any such direction. Indeed, we are persuaded that the conduct of 
American citizens, resident in this country and interested pecuniarily in 
the success of the attempted revolution, has had much to do with pro- 
ducing the feelings of exasperation which have resulted in these out- 
rages, and we cannot but condemn the conduct of those persons who, 
without the courage to assist in the actual struggle, have made war at 
the safe distance of New York or Washington, and sought to involve 
this government in Cuban affairs for the advancement of their own 
selfish ends — ends that we are persuaded refer not to Cuban independ- 
ence as an object so much as to the enlargement of their own private for- 
tunes. If these persons have the passionate desire for Cuban independ- 
ence which they pretend to have, their presence on Cuban soil, with 
arms in their hands aiding Cespedes, would be more courageous, as well 
as more seemly, than their present course, engaged, as they seem to be, 
in inventing reports, violating the laws of the United States, and resort- 
ing to other practices of a hardly less questionable character, to induce 
our government to espouse the cause of a rebellion in which they do not 
seem disposed to risk much themselves. 

Under the circumstances, we deem it the duty of the United States 
to preserve an impartial neutrality between the parties to this struggle 
in Cuba, as in every other struggle against European supremacy on 
any portion of this continent ; and that it may have a rule of action for 
this and all similar cases, we recommend the passage of this bill. 

And we cannot refuse to avail ourselves of this opportunity to ex- 
press our conviction that this government should maintain such a naval 
force in Cuban waters as will fully protect our citizens in their rights, 
and insure them a fair trial on any criminal charges that may be pre- 
ferred against them. 

The present condition of things in Cuba requires this for the protec- 
tion of our citizens and commerce. There is sufficient available 
naval force in the waters about the West Indies for this purpose, and 
we submit that it can be put to no better use. 

GODLOVE S. ORTH. 

N. B. JUDD. 

C. W. WILLAED. 

J. A. AMBLER. 



C C C <KC CC CC 

c cc < x«c^ cc c c 

c <£. cfc'C cc <-(,. 

c cc c^RLc cc. cc ■■<■ M 

: c cc cc 
c CC CC - < 

J'v-cc «cc cc c c 
"^ \c^fef«C cOCC. c<; 
ctccC <r« C cr i 

_r cccc <c< c cc- 

C cCC CcCC CcCC <C 

«CX c 4C ccccc <ccc cc< 

. «Tc rc:«r Ccccc ccc cc,. 

<c < c c: SBfecic «^cc. ex - 

- SS C C Cl/ mCC C<< C Cc c 

cc c c< cr. «rc<cc ccc cr c< 

CC C'C^CCC ccc ^-; 

cc* c c «fcc c< < ccc cc c< 

CC c<f Ct( C C ccC cX «£- 

cc ^ cc : ■. 5ec < c: c < c c. cc <■ _c 

c CC C <CO.CC C<( <CCc -^ 



C«CjGr 



'-<;£■?'?- c> -etc 

cC C C . cc c^ 

<'C~ C< 4- CC C«* /; 

V X CC O 

cc ci< f 
v,£ fete t 



^££, « 



r« 



cc c 
CC c 

< cc c< 
,c cc c 



c *C ;<c cc c 

^.s€^ < 






^c > ^fec^c^^ ^a ^ . Cc* clcCO 



CCcOgj 

cC C 

cc c 
cc c 

CC C 



CC C 
cc c 

CC c< 

C v CC C 

CC CC vC 

• . . C CC c 

i.C CC C 

c < .<rc cc c 
; «. - cc cr « c 
. :C cc c< 

«. ( c «- cc c < 
C < c cc cc c 

(C cc cc 

c c c >x a cc 

' C C cC. cc, vC 

C c e'ec ^ ' : 

. c c c cc ^ , - 

' c c < «L ' 

<. C C <C^_ •'- - 



CCc -v CC CCC 

c,xcc cc < cc 

<: CC v CC CC 

' CCccC ClCc C ^ 



CC •' c ^. ccov 

CC C C cccc CC . 

cc c <: ccc c ccc 

ce'e^ exxc ^-V 

&-*& CC|X ^; 

cc c C CCcC « 

cc c c cc>c c ^. :> 

cc c C CC^cC gCC 

cc CC (CC(.C Cl 

c. cc c ; <^5-C> 



c H ^cc- c cc exc Ccc c«rc- 

-Ct ; l: H^ccC^.. 

« c c K .CCC c ^ co.ee fi 



c ^ fc ccc C c cc CC 
c c #ccc c C CC CC " 
S >- % VVc c c cc ccc < 
■& ccc »C C cc c c 



C cCCtc cCX 



cr - cc 
<l CcC 



cUESk'C 
c 



«C^_c^cr c c 



C CCi 'C<C C> 

^ cc .c<c_ c< 

C cc cc < c ' 

d CC ccc c 

i.C c< CC cC <-i 

cC CC CCC Cc 

s»- s; C «C. C f 



Ccc ( 
- c- ccccc 

C C . «CcCCv C cc 

•C C^CCCCtCCTc 
-ice C C c 
vl'cCC cc/ 
?" cc'^Cccccc. c cc 
- CCCC.CCj 
c_ c- c- CcCC cci 

L c <-: C5.<SC <- C 

dece cc 

I (Ql-cCC CC 
C" CjC CC CO 

C CCL^CC CC 

;: X cc cccc 
c^ c<r «£« cc cc 

re cc:cc cc 

CcC' CCCCC,_ CC 

CC cC CCrCC CC 

c • ^c cc cc cy 

c cc <rcr.ee;: *< 

C c «^CC CC cc 

c'-c c:cc «cc cc., 

c xC ^ cc CC r 
C ,C &? ^C C 



c cCCCC'"C^ CCCC CC 
c cC. .CC-Cc ccccccc 



cc . ft c 

cc « <*£ 



~X < c cc 
1 (C CC 
-* . CC CC 

"Cc CC CC 
C CC Cc 
"81- CCC 
e cc c< 



•CiCCc: 
CC c 



C < 

:.. <z 

:■• c 

r cc 

. c cc 

.:-: C CC 

C C CC 

CcC CC' 



c <: 

;-C ^ 



CTcc CC C c 



(<C cc 

C: C CC 



,.5ctc.;^c ccC CC 
c <:■ cc cc c. c cc 

C c G-acLC C jCC 

cc^xcc - c.«T! 
c ; c^cxacrc « c a:. 

CCccciCZc 



r "C"C cc.cC 

CC CCCC: 

c:c cf€2c 

C C CCCC.'-^ss, 
CCC CC.CCC 



C -C 

c ^.. < 
cCj 



c 

C «TC: 

CCC 

■.ccc 

i •( <Z ICc 

cc; 
: .,c.4C(c 

c c C:C : 
£ «... C CC 

: CCCc 
c- ccc 
.. ccc 
" <c c; <c 

, cc cc 
C cC.CC: 

IT rt' 



o <C c , CC«- 

, CCCC CO ^«iC« 
cc c^ ccc ^c c 

>>C C CO -C C ^ v 

-;• ^ c c ccc .<: t 

f CCC CCcCCC^ 
-< cc c ccc CC cc 

V ,V V c ciCt '-C C c 

^c^c c Sc/| • 
,Vc c C CC C C cc 

Ccr c^c ccC<cVcc -i 

C C C cc <"■ 
,> >- c cc. - 

Z cc cc.ee 

" C c« cc 

- c ccXC 
t: ® c^fe : 

jc;c -. 

C C <CJ c C. c «. c 



^i c '■ 
. c<*r c c w 
c <C1 c c fc-; ^ v • 

^r" c*ic c^ ccc c 

^ O C « cC C c c 

<i: c,c <cc-tc>.c c c 

c^ cC C C( C C 

TC^C C C «C CC] C C < 

cc c c CCC C c 

C^ C C CCC C vf 



c - 



c c ' <; >•■ / l ; ^ er~cc 
cm c, Ss S V^<S 



C < " c C « 



C<£C V Cc 

c c c C c 



• «£< C c 

lcC < 



c y cc < < « 

: c :c co c c cc 

C C c C cccc c< 

: c cc cc c c 5S 

: cccc cm c cc 

C~c a cccc « 

c crc< cc cc C CC 

c c, <: < c cc <c < < cc 

c ccf cc ccc cc 
- ( cc cc lC cc 

r ; c c Cc c, cc 
c rcc'(.c< c« c cc 
C c CC< c < *3 C C C.C 

v c c c" < < c c cc cc c c 

J « < c* c < CC CtCC C c 



cc c 



c c 

C » 



c 



cc r 



V c c c'"< 






c c c^ 



C c* < cc cc cc 
C c ccc/ cc 



c c c < 

cc c < 

cc cc 

C C € C 



c c cc c c c < 

C «■ c c c< a.( 

c <r C C CC C< 

tec C c c < 



c cccc < ■ c cc< c c <r< 

C CCCO -S^f^' ^c 
c c*.c <■ c ca< c^ 

\ U cV C C.CCCQ CC 
C cc c C CCC C v V <C C < 

C cc C C_ c c cC c< c. c«C e c 
c cc<< * cc cc c c . c. — 

z crcc c c - c c c< c - £ „ 

CCCC C C CC C C. t « 

cc CC c c c c . c << C 

i: a ^( COCC c-v. c c. 

cc cc cc <. c c v Cj 

cccc ccccc c c cccc 

cccc ccu.c 5 c cca 

cccc cc c<L c c c^ 
cc c c c c 
cc cc cc < 
cc cc c 

Cc Cc, Cc .C 
C C CC Cc CC * 

cc CCC CO C<C J 

CC^CC C' or r 
re cccc- c <xc c< 



c c 

.J c c 

c c <r c c 

cc: cc cc 

c cc cc 



>c.c^ccc cc c< « 
■ V c 7 c «:c cc c ; «. c< 

c c% cc^rc cc cc < 

V <■ < «rc c c c < c < 

<;c ■ c #cc <c cc 

, 4L t c «£C cc C C «: < c c 

" C( c CL^cc C c< cc 

^, ; \ ^KC cc C c < t v c c 
<x c «cc c c c. «« c c c 

< c CCCC C C C c CC C 

<r >, c <«:c ^ *: c < v cc c 
^ c C CCCcc CC cc CC < 
CC, C CCCcC CCCC f (( < 

^ ^ %' VVS^^C cJ c 

^ c <c V rccj-cc crc c cc _c 



c <r< ccc^cc cc 



cc c cc; 



«LC CC 

cc <c 



cc cc o 

CC CC Cc c 

Cc CC Cc v 

c c cc Cc a 

cc ccc co a 

CC^-CC c 

CCcCCC' C cc 

cc<ccc_ ■ Cc cc 

"" C CC d 



CC< <3CC 

C cc vCC C • 

cc c 

C cc. CCCC 
^: (.c<cccc 
C cc CCCC 

cr cc cc c c 

—"CC CC CC 



C <c CC C C 
>T CC CC c C 

;« <x cc c c 

r «xl cc c c 
* cc cc cjr 
C cc cc c 

c cc;cccc 

C cc cc cc 

c c cc; c^cc 

cc. CC QC 
- ; (C cc cc 

r^ t_C CC CC 

c cC Cc CC 
"I cC <f c 

C^c CC.CCvf 

- c CC(. 

-- C CC c 

- c^ cc;.c< 

C C ■ CC G .. ' 

C C - CCc c 



C CCv C CCCC CC. - 

> cc Ct'.^CC cC 

C cc C C«C<C CC- C * 

c cc C CC^'C cc <r * 
S % c c «r CC <8T^" 

r i (CCccT C C CC 



c c 



tccc c c cc 



CC fC « <vC<l 



cC ccccc Cc^. cc 

cC cc cc Cc/ " 

- cc a Cc - •■ - 

^_cc\cc CC.<C CC 

cC cc .c Cc < CC 

cc cc re cc/. c cc 

cc c<- C C 6 c «■ 

CCcc c CC c< c cc 
CC Cc . c C < > c 



? C "fei-CC c c cc 
t C «?c cc c C cc 



c c C C cc ■»- C 
c c C C cc CC 
CCcc c ci.<- < 
c c C c c<" <r 
C C C C c* c 
C C c c 
C C Cs c 
C C cc . c 
C CcC c. c 

' ■ -*" C c C 

c 

' C C! 



> o . cc< - ccc < cc 

C c C CCC c C c C Cc 
C C * CCc c C C C c c 
<: C *c_ CCC c cc ft c c^ 

^ c <. cc« C c c > ,- 
C c c cc re c c 
<: c v cc c .C C c 

C c cc t:c< -<<-.. c 
C C ccc cC C c 
- c ccc C.C C 
c c c < C Cc 

: cc cc cc ^ 

C cC c, cc cc 

; C cC ccc c.C CC ' 

- V- vc cc* c< cc 

^ c< Cc CC C 

CC re. CC C 

CC <« CC CC 

«,< C< cC CC 

C C Ccc CC CC 

CC c 

C . ■ cc < 



cc c c cc 
§? CC C C €1C 
iCC c c cc 
CC C C <C 

,C CC c c «C 

C cccc 



c..C C- 

cc cc. c 
.c c 

IC C 
ICC c 
KC CC < < 
cC CCc 
ccc cc 
^ c CCc ( 

c C 
jcC ^ 
C C< • ■ 

: c c 



^i 



CC 



i cc < 



C c 

^ C si CCc v« 

CC c c_ C C < 

CC t c c c < 

cC c • c CC 

CC c CC < 

cc c - cc 



v c C C 



< CC c c c C cc 

C CC cC c c cc 

cc ccc cc 

v. cc c c c cc 

< cc c c c c c< 

V^ c C c cc 

\m ■ v c c c cc 

■ 4L ■ Ccc CC 

c « < ^ c 

C * - c C 

C«lc c C CC 

C C c 

CCC 

C ccc 

C C ( 

f C Cc i 
< . c 
CCC c CCc 
CCC< c CCc 
C < ; 



